Cornell University
Library
m
The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States-on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924061134601
CYCLOPEDIA
OF
LAW AND PROCEDURE
WILLIAM MACK, LL.D
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
VOLUME XXXVIII
NEW YORK
THE AMERICAN LAW BOOK COMPANY
l.ONUON: BUTTRRWOUTH & CO., 12 Bbll Yard
I9II
/3 //x
Copyright, 1911
By Thk American Law Book Company
J. Ji. I.YON COMPANY
PKINTEKS AND IllNDERl
ALBANY, w. /.
To
CHARLES WALTER DUMONT
more than to any other man is due the existence of the Cyclopedia
of Law and Procedure. His was the idea ; his was the plan ; and
his has been the business ability and energetic management, as
organizer and president of The American Law Book Company, which
have made possible the successful publication of these volumes,
which are therefore respectfully dedicated to him.
William Mack.
TABLE OF TITLES, EDITORS, AND CONTRIBUTORS
Tenancy in Common, i--- ...... David Ash
Tender, 127 Alva R. Hunt
Territories, 191 . - ... Charles Sumner Lobingier
Theaters and Shows, 252 Alexander Karst
Theft Insurance, 274 Esten Calhoun Taylor
Threats, 289 Alexander Karst
Time, 306 ...-...._... Stanley A. Hackett
Title Insurance, 344 Alexander Karst
Toll Roads, 361 Stanley A. Hackett
Torts, 408 ..--.- H. Gerald Chapin
Towage, 553-...-..... Edward C. El;lsbree
Towns, 593..-..-.... Henry H. Ingersqll
Trade-Marks, Trade-Names, and Unfair Competition, 674 . William B. Hale
Trading Stamps, 919- - - - - - - - Edwin DuBose Smith
Treason, 951-.--..-... Stanley A. Hackett
William R. Day
Treaties, 961
' Charles Henry Butler
( Joseph Henry Beale
Trespass, 985 ....... .-J
( Richard Y. Fitz-Gerald
Trespass to Try Title, 1191 ... Alexander Stronach
Trial, 1238 ......... Roderick E. Rombauer
Trover and Conversion, 1997 - - - - William Winchester Keysor
Words, Phrases, and Maxims .... Esten Calhoun Taylor
Cite this Volume
38 Cyc.
Followed by Page.
TRNANCY IN COMMON
By David Ash
Of the Baltimore Bar
I. DEFINITIONS, 3
A. Tenancy in Common, 3
B. Tenant in Common, 4
C. Coparcenary or Parcenary, 5
II. Creation, existence, and Termination, s
A. Creation and Existence, 5
B. Severance and Termination, 13
III. MUTUAL RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND LIABILITIES OF COTENANTS AND
INCIDENTS OF RELATION, 14
A. Fiduciary Relation of Cotcnants Inter Se, 14
B. Use and Enjoyment of Premises, 16
1. Right of Entry, 16
2. Equal Right to Use and Enjoyment, 17
C. Possession and Seizin, 20
1. Right to Possession, 20
2. Possession of One as Possession of All, 21
3. Ouster and Adverse Possession, 23
a. Rule Stated, 23
b. What Constitutes Ouster or Adverse Possession, 25
(i) In General, 25
(ii) Unauthorized Conveyance of More Than Cotenant's '
Share as Ouster, 34
(ill) Ouster as Evidenced by Pleadings, 36
(iv) Notice of Adverse Holding, 37
c. Tacking Possession, 38
d. Waiver or Abandonment by Disseizor; Survivorship, 38
e. Ouster and Adverse Possession as Question of Law or Fact, 39
f. Action to Determine Validity of Adverse Claim, 40
D. Purchase or Discharge of Outstanding Interest, Title, or Claim, 40
1. Outstanding Interests, Title, or Claims in General, 40
a. Right to Purchase or Discharge and Effect Thereof, 40
b. Extent and Qualification of Rule, 43
c. Contribution ; Lien, 46
2. Extinguishment of Tax Claim and Purchase of Tax Title, 48
a. Right to Extinguish or Purchase, and Effect Thereof, 48
b. Contribution; Lien, 51
3. Purchasing Cotenant's Interest, 53
E. Repairs, Improvements, and Expenses For Care and Management of
Property, 53
1. Duty and Right to Repair, 53
2. Contribution For Expenses; Services, 53
a. Rule Stated, 53
b. Basis and Anwunt of Contribution, 58
c. Right to Contribution as Dependent Upon Sharing Rents and
Profits, and Conversely, 59
d. Right as Affected by Statute, 60
e. Re7?iedies, 60
f. Lien, 61
F. Rent, Income, and Profits, 62
2 [38 Cye.] TENANCY IN COMMON
1. Collection and Application of Rents, 62
2. Liability of Cotenants For Rents and Profits, 63
a. Rule Stated, 63
b. Interest; Costs, 71
c. Lien, 72
G. Agreements and Conveyances Between Cotenants, 72
H. Estoppel Between Coteriants as to Common Title, 73
I. Respective Interests of Cotenants, 74
J. Remedies, Actions, and Proceedings, 75
1. Account, 75
a. Nature and Grounds of Remedy iii General, 75
b. Demand as Condition Precedent, 77
c. Crediting Expenditures For Common Benefit, 78
d. Equitable Accounting, 80
2. Assumpsit, 81
a. In General, 81
b. For Rents and Profits, 83
3. Tort Actions, 84
a. In General; Trover, 84
b. For Crops and Timber, 88
c. Waste, 89
d. Ejectment, 91
(i) In General, 91
(ii) Title to Support Action; Capacity to Sue,Q3
(ill) Demand, 94
iv) Extent of Recovery ; Judgment, 94
e. Trespass, 94
(i) In General, 94
(ii) To Try Title, 95
4. Equitable Jurisdiction, 96
a. /w General, 96
b. Injunction, 97
(i) 7n General, 97
(ii) To Restrain Waste, 98
5. Construction of Statutes Relating to Actions Involving Cotenancy, 99
6. Limitations, 100
IV. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF COTENANTS AS TO THIRD PERSONS, 101
A. Authority of Cotenants to Bind Each Other, 101
1. Rule Stated, 101
2. Lease ; Rescission or Surrender, 104
3. Release or Settlement, 105
4. Notice to One Cotenant as Notice to All, 106
5. Estoppel and Ratification, 106
6. Joint Contracts ; Leases, 108
B. Sale or Conveyance, 108
1. By One Cotenant of More Than His Share, 108
a. Rule Stated, 108
b. Ratification; Estoppel, 111
c. Remedies of Non-Consenting Cotenants, 111
2. Of Cotenant' s Undivided Interest, 112
3. Conveyance by Metes and Bounds, 114
C. Actions and Proceedings, 116
1. In General; Amount of Recovery, 116
2. Parties, 118
a. Joinder of Plaintiffs, 118
(i) Actions in Which Cotenants Need Not Join, 118
TENANCY IN COMMON [38 Cyc] 3
(ii) Actions in Which Joinder Is Necessary, 120
(hi) Actions in Which Joinder Is Permissive, 121
(iv) Actions Which Cotenants Cannot Maintain Jointly, 121
b. Defendant, 122
3. Limitations, 123
CROSS-REFERENCES
For Matters Relating to :
Attachment of Property Owned in Common, see Attachment, 4 Cyc. 566, 598.
Conveyance of Cotenant's Interest as Champerty, see Champerty and Main-
tenance, 6 Cyc. 872.
Distraint For Rent by Tenant in Common, see Landlord and Tenant,
24 Cyc. 1291.
Execution Against Interest of Cotenant, see Executions, 17 Cyc. 943, 1094.
Fire Insurance of Interest of Cotenant, see Fire Insurance, 19 Cyc. 883.
Forcible Entry and Detainer by Cotenant, see Forcible Entry and
Detainer, 19 Cyc. 1141.
Homestead Rights in Property Held in Common, see Homesteads, 21 Cyc.
504.
Infant Cotenant, see Infants, 22 Cyc. 528.
Joinder by Tenants in Common in Writ of Entry, see Entry, Writ of, 15 Cyc.
1074.
Joint Tenancy, see Joint Tenancy, 23 Cyc. 482.
Judgment Against One Tenant in Common as Binding Cotenant, see Judg-
ments, 23 Cyc. 1256.
Larceny by Tenant in Common, see Larceny, 25 Cyc. 23.
Mechanic's Lien on Property in Common, see Mechanics' Liens, 27 Cyc. 54.
Municipal Corporation as Tenant in Common, see Municipal Corporations,
28 Cyc. 608.
Oral Partition by Cotenants as Affected by Statute of Frauds, see Frauds,
Statute of, 20 Cyc. 224.
Power of Corporation to Take Land as Tenant in Common, see Corporations,
10 Cyc. 1132.
Right of Tenant in Common to Redeem From Mortgage, see Mortgages,
27 Cyc. 1808, 1827.
Shareholders of Corporation as Tenants in Common of Corporate Property,
see Corporations, 10 Cyc. 373, 1328. •
Survival of Action Upon Death of Tenant in Common, see Abatement and
Revival, 1 Cyc. 72.
Tenancy in Common in Crops, see Landlord and Tenant, 24 Cyc. 1471.
Tenancy in Common in Mining Property, see Mines and Minerals, 27 Cyc.
768.
Widow as Tenant in Common With Heirs Before Assignment of Dower,
see Dower, 14 Cyc. 961.
I. Definitions.
A. Tenancy in Common. Tenancy in common is the holding of an estate
in land by several persons, by several and distinct titles, and there need be unity
of possession only,^ but perhaps an entire disunion of interest, of title, and of
1. Manhattan Real Estate, etc., Assoc, v. session of any particular part of tlie land,
Cudlipp, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 532, aSS, 80 each being entitled to occupy the whole in
N. Y. Suppl. 993. common with the others, or to receive his
Another definition is: " Tenancy in com- share of the rents and profits." Rapalje & L.
mon, in the strict sense of the term, is where L. Diet. tit. "Tenancy in Common" [quoted
two or more persons are entitled to land in in Carver v. Fennimore, 116 Ind. 236, 239, 19
such a manner that they have an undivided N. E. 103].
possession but several freeholds, i. e. : no In a mere expectancy there can be no ten-
one of them is entitled to the exclusive pos- ancy in common, for in order to create the
[I, AJ
4: [38 Cyc]
TENANCY IN COMMON
time.^ Possession under a tenancy in common is per my and not per tout, and as
each tenant owns ^n undivided fraction, he cannot know where that fraction is
until a division has been made.^ While definitions of tenancy in common gen-
erally relate to tenancy in common in real property, this tenancy can exist in
personalty as well as in realty.* ,
B. Tenant in Common.^ Tenants in common are such as hold by several
and distinct titles, but by unity of possession; because none knoweth his own
severalty, and therefore they all occupy promiscuously." The qualities of their
estate may be different, the shares may be unequal; the modes of acquisition of
title may be unlike; and the only unity between them be that of possession.
Each is entitled before severance to an interest in every inch of the soil; ^ but no
one of them is entitled to the exclusive possession of any particular part of the
object of a tenancy in common there must
be an actual estate in possession. Betts f.
Betts, 4 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 317, 353.
The difference between an estate in com-
mon and a tight of common is that the first
is a corporeal hereditament, while the last
appears from its very definition to be an
incorporeal hereditament. The first is the
land itself; the other a profit which a man
hath in the land of another. Crawford V.
Neff, 3 Walk. (Pa.) 57, 61.
Tenancies in common difier from sole es-
tates merely in unity of possession. Craw-
ford !■. Nef5f, 3 Walk. (Pa.) 57, 61.
Unity of possession is an essential attri-
bute of tenancy in common. Blessing v.
House, 3 Gill & J. (Md.) 290, 307; Laughlin
V. O'Reily, 92 Miss. 121, 125, 45 So. 193;
Sutton !,-. Jenkins, 147 N. C. 11, 16, 60 S. E.
643 ; Lillianskyoldt f. Goss, 2 Utah 292, 297 ;
Bulger V. Woods, 3 Pinn. (Wis.) 460, 463.
It is the only unity recognized between ten-
ants in common. Bush v. Gamble, 127 Pa.
St. 43, 50, 17 Atl. 865.
The ownership of land by one and of the
house thereon by the other does not create
a community of property, under the civil
code. Javier v. Javier, 6 Philippine 493, 495.
3. Silloway v. Brown, 12 Allen (Mass.) 30,
36 [quoting 2 Blackstone Comm. 191] ; Tay-
lor V. Millard, 118 N. Y. 244, 249, 23 N. E.
376, 6 L. R. A. 667.
There can be no tenancy in a mere actual
possession by one. There must be some right
or title to the possession, and not the mere
actual possession, to create a cotenancy.
Lillianskyoldt v. Goss, 2 Utah 292, 297.
3. Taylor v. Millard, 118 N. Y. 244, 250,
23 K E. 376, 6 L. R. A. 667.
4. Freeman Coten. § 88 [citing Haven v.
Mehlgaften, 19 111. 91; Livingston v. Lynch,
4 Johns. Oh. (N. Y.) 573]. And see infra,
II, A.
5. Distinction between joint tenants and
tenants in common see Joint Tenancy, 23i
Cyc. 484. •
6. 2 Blackstone Comm. 191 [.quoted in
Hunter v. State, 60 Ark. 312, 318, 30 S. W.
42; Griswold v. Johnson, 5 Conn. 363, 365;
Gittings V. Worthington, 67 Md. 130, 153,
9 Atl. 228; Silloway v. Brown, 12 Allen
(Mass.) 30, 36; Gould v. Eagle Creek Sub-
District No. 3, 8 Minn. 427, 431; Tilton v.
Vail, 42 Hun (N. Y.) 638, 640; Coster v.
[I. A]
Lorillard, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 265, 337;
O'Bryan v. Brown, (Tenn. Ch. App. 1898)
48 S. W. 315, 316.
Other definitions are: "Those that come
to the land by several titles, or by one title
and several rights." 5 Bacon Abr. 240.
" Such as hold by several and distinct
titles, but by unity of possession." 1 Bouvier
L. Diet. 574 [quoted in Lagow V. Neilson,
10 Ind. 183, 185].
"They which have lands or tenements in
fee simple, fee tail, or for term of life, &c.
and they have such lands or tenements by
several titles, and not by a joint title, ar,d
none of them know of this his several, but
they ought by the law to occupy these lands
or tenements in common, and pro indiiiso
to take the profits in common." Coke Litt.
tit. "Of Tenants in Common," lib. 3, c. 4,
§ 292 [quoted in Blessing v. House, 3 Gill
& J. (Md.) 290, 307].
" They who hold by several titles, or by
one title on several rights; and they have
several freeholds, and their right is several."
Haysman v. Moon, 7 Mod. 430, 437, 87 Eng.
Reprint 1337.
Where one. rents land for the purpose of
having a single crop raised on it, of which
the lessor is to have a part for the use of
the land and the cultivator a part for hia
labor, and there is no evidence that it was
the intention that the relation of landlord
and tenant should exist between them, the
parties are to be considered as tenants in
common in the crop. Ponder v. Rhea, 32
Ark. 435, 437.
One who owns mineral rights is not a co-
tenant with the owner of the surface.
Hutchinson v. Kline, 199 Pa. St. 564, 49 Atl.
312. But the proprietors of a mining ditch
and owners of mining rights are tenants in
common of real estate. Bradley v. Harkness,
26 Cal. 69. And after such a ditch has been
abandoned and its flow turned into another
stream, a tenant in common, in the absence
of contractual or statutory limitations, may
recapture and use his proportion of the water
for irrigating or other purposes. Meagher
V. Hardenbrook, 11 Mont. 385, 28 Pac. 451.
7. Sullivan v. Sullivan, 4 Hun (N. Y.)
198, 200 [reversed on other grounds in 66
N. Y. 37].
8. Martin v. Bowie, 37 S. C. 102, 15 S. E.
736.
TENANCY IN COMMON [38 Cycj 5
land, each being entitled to occupy the whole in common with the others or to
receive his share of the rents and profits.'
C. , Coparcenary or Parcenary. An estate in coparcenary is an estate
acquired by two or more persons, usually females,'" by descent from the same
ancestor;" parceners or coparceners'^ being defined as 'several persons taking
lands, or any undivided share of lands, held for an estate of inheritance by
descent,' " all the coparceners, whatever their number, constituting but one
heir and having but one estate among them," The estate arose according to
the course of common law in the case of descent of realty to female heirs, and
according to particular custom, as for instance the gavelkind custom of the county
of Kent, to male heirs, being in the latter instance an exception to the rule of
primogeniture.'^ The estate resembles joint tenancy more closely than tenancy
in common, having the same three unities of title, possession, and interest as the
former, and in addition generally the unity of time. But there is no survivor-
ship, in which respect the estate partakes more of a tenancy in common.'" The
estate never arose by purchase, but only by descent, therein differing from the
other cotenancies." Whilst joint tenancies refer to persons, coparcenary refers
to the estate; their right of possession is in common, each may alien her share
and the alienees will hold as tenants in common; their respective shares descend
severally to their respective heirs." They had the same remedy in equity for
an account as tenants in common." This estate, although formerly recognized
in a few of the older states of the Union,'" is now generally abolished, in many
instances by statutes which change such estates into tenancies in common.^'
II. Creation, existence, and Termination.
A. Creation and Existence. At common law a tenancy in common could
be created only expressly or by necessary implication,^' and the inclination of the
courts was to construe conveyances as creating joint tenancies rather than tenancies
9. Carver v. Fennimore, 116 Ind. 236, 19 descent. Baker v. Williams, 19 Cox C. C.
N. E. 103. 81, 79 L. T. Rep. N. S. 343; Berens v. Fel-
10. Chitty Descents 76 [ciied in Freeman lowes, 56 L. T. Eep. N. S. 391, 35 Wkly. Rep.
Coten. § 79]. 356.
Males are in some instances made par- 16. Hoffar v. Dement, 5 Gill (Md.) 132,
ceners by direct descent from their common 46 Am. Dec. 628; Coke Litt. 1636, 164a; 2
ancestor, and in other instances they become Cruise Dig. 391, tit. XIX, §§ 5, 6; 4 Kent
parceners by being heirs to a female parcener. Comm. 366.
Freeman Coten. § 77. See also 2 Blackstone 17. 2 Blackstone Comm. 188.
Comm. 187; Coke Litt. §§ 241, 242, 254, 18. 4 Kent Comm. (13th ed.) 366; 1
265. Preston Estates 138.
11. Burrill L. Diet. tit. "Estates in Co- 19. O'Bannon f. Roberts, 2 Dana (Ky.)
parcenary." 54; Drury «. Drury, 1 Ch. Rep. 49, 21 Eng.
12. So called because they may be con- Reprint 504; 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. tit. "Account,"
strained to make partition. 2 Blackstone A, 1 note.
Comm. 189. 20. See O'Bannon v. Roberts, 2 Dana (Ky.)
13. Preston Abstracts Title 68 [quoted in 54; Graham v. Graham, 6 T. B. Mon. (Ky.)
Freeman Coten. § 77]. 561, 17 Am. Dec. 166; Gilpin v. Hollings-
14. Hoffar v. Dement, 5 Gill (Md.) 132, worth, 3 Md. 190, 56 Am. Dec. 737; Hoffar
46 Am. Dee. 628; 2 Blackstone Comm. 187; v. Dement, 5 Gill (Md.) 132, 46 Am. Dee.
Coke Litt. 163. 628 ; Stevenson f. Cofferin, 20 N. H. 150.
15. Leigh v. Shepherd, 2 B. & B. 465, 6 21. See the statutes of the several states.
E. C. L. 230; Harris v. Nichols, Cro. Eliz. And see Stevenson v. Cofferin, 20 N. H. 150
19, 78 Eng. Reprint 285; Johnstone f. Baber, (under Rev. St. c. 129, § 3) ; 4 Kent Comm.
25 L. J. Ch. 899, 39 Eng. L. k Eq. 189; Buller (13th ed.) 367; 1 Washburn Real Prop. 414,
c. Exeter, 1 Ves. 340, 27 Eng. Reprint 1069; 415.
2 Blackstone Comm. 187; 1 Chitty Descents In Canada the estate is abolished by Consol.
76 et seq., 182; 4 Kent Comm. 366. St. e. 82, § 38.
Since 3 & 4 Wm. IV, c. 106, where persons 22. Jackson v. Livingston, 7 Wend. (N. Y.)
take under a will insufficient to annex the 136; Pruden v. Paxton, 79 N. C. 446, 2,8 Am
incident of coparcenary to the devise so Eep. 333; Fisher V. Wigg, 1 P. Wms. 14, 24
taken, they take as joint tenants and not Eng. Reprint 275. See also 2 Reeves Real
as coparceners, taking by devise and not by Prop. § 685.
[II, A]
6 [38 CycJ
TENANCY IN COMMON
in common, but the modern tendency is to import an intention in favor of a tenancy
in common whenever the expressions in a conveyance or the acts of the parties
permit such a construction; ^^ and generally under the statutes of the respective
states, and by judicial construction, estates which would have been joint at
common law are made estates in common.^* Thus a tenancy in common springs
up whenever an estate in real or personal property is owned concurrently by two
or more persons under a conveyance or under circumstances which do not either
expressly or by necessary implication call for some other form of cotenancy.
23. See Joint Tenancy, 23 Cyc. 485, 4&6.
24. See Joint Tenancy, 23 Cyc. 485, 486.
25. Alabama. — Hendricks c. Clemmons, 147
Ala. 590, 41 So. 306; Colbey-Hinkley Co. v.
Jordan, 146 Ala. 634, 41 So. 962; Newbold
V. Smart, 67 Ala. 326.
Alaska. — Einswanger v. Henninger, 1
Alaska 509.
California. — Wittenbrock v. Wheadon, 128
Cal. 150, 60 Pac. 664, 79 Am. St. Kep. 32;
Hewlett V. Owens, 50 Cal. 474.
Connecticut. — Barniim v. Landon, 25 Conn.
137; Young v. Williams, 17 Conn. 393; Oviatt
V. Sage, 7 Conn. 95.
Delaware. — Tubbs v. Lynch, 4 Harr. 521.
Georgia. — McCrary v. Glover, lOO Ga. 90,
26 S. E. 102; McEea v. Button, 95 Ga. 267,
22 S. E. 149; Grimes v. Little, 56 Ga. 649.
Hawaii. — Godfrey v. Rowland, 17 Hawaii
577; Godfrey v. Tvowland, 16 Hawaii 377, 388;
Hawaiian Trust, etc., Co. v. Barton, 16
Hawaii 294; Paaluhi v. Keliihaleole, 11
Hawaii 101; Thurston t\ Allen, 8 Hawaii 392;
Kalaeokekoi v. Kahele, 7 Hawaii 147 ; King
V. Robertson, 6 Hawaii 718; In re Congdon,
6 Hawaii 633; Awa v. Horner, 5 Hawaii 543;
Kane i".. Perry, 3 Hawaii 663; Matter of
Vida, 1 Hawaii 107.
Illinois. — Rogers v. Tyley, 144 111. 652, 32
N. E. 393; Eraser v. Gates, 118 111. 99, 1
N. E. 817.
Indiana. — Sims v. Dame, 113 Ind. 127, 15
N. E. 217.
Iowa.— Truth Lodge No. 213 A. F. & A. M.
V. Barton, 119 Iowa 230, 93 N. W. 106. 97
Am. St. Rep. 303: Arthur v. Chicagro. etc.,
R. Co., 61 Iowa 648, 17 N. W. 24; Conn v.
Conn, 58 Iowa 747 13 N. W. 5].
Kentucky. — Pope v. Brassfield. 110 Ky.
128, 61 S. W. 5, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 16a3; Trues-
dell V. White, 13 Bu»h 610.
Louisiana. — Meyer v. Schurbruck, 37 La.
Ann. 373.
Maine. — Carter v. Bailey, 64 Me. 458, 18
Am. Rep. 273.
Massachusetts. — Goell v. Morse. 126 Mass.
480; Beaumont v. Crane, 14 'Mass. 400.
Michigan. — Valade v. Masson. 135 Mich.
41, 97 N. W. 59; Nowlen v. Hall, 128 Mich.
274, 87 N. W. 222; In re Graff, 123' Mich.
456, 82 N". W. 248; Moreland v. Strong, 115
Mich. 211, 73 N. W. 140, 69 Am. St. Rep.
553.
Missouri. — Primm v. Walker, 38 Mo. 94.
Montana. — Norman v. Corbley, 32 Mont.
196, 79 Pac. 1059.
New Hampshire. — ^White v. Brooks, 43
N. H. 402; Herbert v. Odlin, 40 N. H. 267.
New Jersey. — Jenkins V. Jenkins, (Ch.
1886) 5 Atl. 134.
[II. A]
New Yoj-fc.— McPhillips v. Fitzgerald, 177
N. Y. 543, 69 N. E. 1126; Prentice v. Janssen,
79 N. Y. 478 [affirming 14 Hun 549] ; Taylor
V. Taylor, 43 N. Y. 578; Jackson v. Moore,
94 N. Y. App. Div. 504, 87 N. Y. Suppl.
1101; Levine v. Goldsmith, 83 N. Y. App.
Div. 39», 82 N. Y. Suppl. 299, 13 N. Y. Annot.
Cas. 123 ; Messing t: Messing, 64 N. Y. App.
Div. 125, 71 N. Y. Suppl. 717; Chittenden
V. Gates, 18 N. Y. App. Div. 169, 45 N. Y.
Suppl. 768; Preston v. Fitch, 19 N. Y. Suppl.
849 [reversed on other grounds in 137 N. Y.
41, 33 N. E. 77]; Wiswall v. MoGown, 2
Barb. 270 [affirmed in 10 N. Y. 465] ; Matter
of New York, 41 Misc. 134, 83 N. Y. Suppl.
951 (the erection of piers by a city under a
statute vesting authority for such erection
and directing it to grant common interests
to abutting property holders) ; Baumann v.
Guion, 21 Misc. 120, 46 N. Y. Suppl. 715.
North Carolina. — Boylston Ins. Co. v.
Davis, 68 N. C. 17, 12 Am. Rep. 624 ; Pitt v.
Petway, 34 N. C. 69; Parker v. Vick, 22
N. C. 195.
Ohio. — Roberts v. Remy, 56 Ohio St. 249,
46 N. E. 1066; Weakly v. Hall, 13 Ohio 167,
42 Am. Dec. 194; Greene v. Graham, 5 Ohio
264; Massie v. Long, 2 Ohio 287, 15 Am. Dec.
547.
Oklahoma. — Logan v. Oklahoma Mill Co.,
14 Okla. 402, 79 Pac. 103.
Oregon. — Beezley v. Crossen, 14 Oreg. 473,
13 Pac. 306.
Pennsylvania. — Bush v. Gamble, 127 Pa.
St. 43, 17 Atl. 865; Coleman's Appeal, 62
Pa. St. 252; Caines v. Grant, 5 Binn. 119.
South Carolina. — -Harvin v. Hodge, Dud-
ley 23.
Tennessee. — Hoffman v. Lyons, 5 Lea 377;
Cheek i\ Wheatley, 3 Snecd 484; Terrell v.
Murray, 2 Yerg. 384.
Texas. — McDougal r. Bradford, 80 Tex.
558, 16 S. W. 619; Peterson v. Fowler, 73
Tex. 524, 11 S. W. 534; Thomas v. Morrison,
(Civ. App. 1898) 46 S. W. 46; Mahon v.
Barnett, (Civ. App. 1897) 45 S. W. 24.
Utah. — Lehi Irr. Co. v. Moyle, 4 Utah 327,
9 Pac. 867.
Vermont. — Spencer v. Austin, 38 Vt. 258;
Aiken v. Smith, 21 Vt. 172; McFarland v.
Stone, 17 Vt. 163, 44 Am. Deo. 325.
Washington. — Anderson v. Snowden, 44
Wash. 274, 87 Pac. 356.
West Virginia. — Davis v. Settle, 43 W. Va.
17, 26 S. E. 557.
Wisconsin. — Ashland Lodge No. 63 I. O
0. F. V. Williams, 100 Wis. 223, 75 N. w!
954; Richards f. Koenig, 24 Wis. 360; Wright
V. Sperry, 21 Wis. 331; Higgins v. Riddell,
12 Wis. 587 ; Welch v. Sackett, 12 Wis. 243 •
TENANCY IN COMMON
[88 CycJ 7
It is held that a tenancy in common may be created by will/" by descent,^
Hungertord v. Gushing, 8 Wis. 332; Challe-
foux V. Duoharme, 8 Wis. 287.
United States. — Davis v. Chapman, 36 Fed.
42; Aspen Min., etc., Co. v. Eucker, 28 Fed.
220; Austin v. Eutland R. Co., 17 Fed. 466,
21 Blatchf. 358; Eobison v. Codman, 20 Fed.
Cas. No. 11,970, 1 Sumn. 121; Stillman v.
White Rock Mfg. Co., 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,446,
3 Woodb. & M. 588.
Canada. — Lewis v. Allison, 30 Can. Sup.
Ct. 173; Kerr v. Connell, 2 N. Brunsw. 133;
Wiggins V. White, 2 N. Brunsw. 97 ; Brady
V. Arnold, 19 U. C. C. P. 42, 48; Leech v.
Leech, 24 U. C. Q. B. 321 ; Colver v. MacKlem,
11 U. C. Q. B. 513.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 5 ef seq.
The pioprietoTs of a mining ditch are ten-
ants in common of real estate. Bradley v.
Harkness, 26 Cal. 69.
A conveyance to one under an agreement
to hold for himself and others makes the
vendee tenant in common with the others.
Davis v. Givens, 71 Mo. 94; Anderson v.
Snowden, 44 Wash. 274, 87 Pac. 356. Com-
pare Morris v. Eoseberry, 46 W. Va. 24, 32
S. E. 1019.
Conveyance by trustees under mistake as
to authority to convey the entire tract makes
the vendor and vendee tenants in common.
Grimes v. Little, 56 Ga. 649.
Trading property for a slave see Cheek v.
Wheatley, 3 Sneed (Teun.) 484.
The question as to the existence of a ten-
ancy in common is for the jury where there
is evidence tending to prove such a relation-
ship. Inglis V. Webb, 117 Ala. 387, 23 So.
125; Eucker v. Wheeler, 127 U. S. 85, 8
S. Ct. 1142, 32 L. ed. 102. Thus whether or
not a tenancy in common exists in crops is
a question for the jury where an alleged
agreement upon which such claim is founded
is by parol or ambiguous. Bromley v. Miles,
51 N. Y. App. Div. 95, 64 N. Y. Suppl. 353.
A sealed agreement merely to pay a share
of crops in return for work, labor, and ma-
terials does not per se create a tenancy in
common, in the absence of statute. Patten
V. Heustis, 26 N. J. L. 293.
Tenancy in common in timber. — Where an
agreement is made that one of the parties
shall find timber and the other shall manu-
facture it into some article and they shall
each then be entitled to some aliquot part
of the articles so manufactured, or where
an agreement is made that one party is to
supply the timber and the other shall do
some work and labor thereon, and they are
then to receive proportionate shares thereof,
the beneficiaries under said agreement are
tenants in common and not partners, and each
has a right to dispose only of his own in-
terest therein. White v. Brooks, 43 N. H.
402; Kerr v. Connell, 2 N. Brunsw. 133;
Wiggins V. White, 2 N. Brunsw. 97. A sale
of standing timber on designated land, to
be cut and removed at a specified rate, vests
the exclusive title to the timber in the pur-
chasers, and leaves the exclusive title to the
land in the sellers, and does not make the pur-
chasers and sellers tenants in common in
either the land or the timber. Dexter v. Lath-
rop, 136 Pa. St. 565, 20 Atl. 545. Compare
Wheeler v. Carpenter, 107 Pa. St. 271. Where
there is no joint undivided interest in the
whole property, and separate interests are de-
pendent on surveys that should have been or-
dered by plaintiff, plaintiff, having failed to
order a survey, cannot take advantage of its
own fault for the creation of a cotenancy; and
it cannot sue as a cotenant for timber taken
from the unsurveyed tract. U. S. v. Northern
Pac. E. Co., 6 Mont. 351, 12 Pac. 769.
Tenancy in common in waters see Bailey
V. Eust, 15 Me. 440; Eichards v. Koenig, 24
Wis. 360 ; Stillman v. White Eock Mfg. Co.,
23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,446, 3 Woodb. & M. 538 ;
Austin V. Eutland E. Co., 17 Fed. 466, 21
Blatchf. 358'. The mere privilege of drawing
water for a, conveyed business so long as
the grantee should carry on the business, the
grantee paying share of repairing expenses,
does not create a tenancy in common in the
right to use the water. Shed v. Leslie, 22
Vt. 498.
Tenancy in common in ditch see Yannest
1?. Fleming, 79 Iowa 638, 44 N. W. 906, 18
Am. St. Eep. 387, 8 L. E. A. 277; Lehi Irr.
Co. V. Moyle, 4 Utah 327, 9 Pac. 867. An
agreement for several ownership of water in
a ditch, for use on the several lands of the
respective owners, does not create a tenancy
in common. Telluride V. Davis, 33 Colo. 355,
80 Pac. 1051.
36. See Wills. And see cases cited infra,
note 28.
27. Alabama. — Fles v. Eosser, 162 Ala.
504, 50 So. 287; Inglis v. Webb, 117 Ala.
387, 23 So. 125; Ohmer v. Boyer, 89 Ala. 273,
7 So. 663.
Connecticut. — Wooster v. Hunts Lyman
Iron Co., 38 Conn. 256.
Illinois. — iBrumback v. Brumback, 198 111.
66, 64 N. E. 741 ; Kotz V. Belz, 178 111. 434,
53 N. E. 367.
Indiama. — MoPheeters v. Wright, 124 Ind.
560, 24 N. E. 734, 9 L. E. A. 176; Kidwell v.
Kidwell, 84 Ind. 224; Centreville, etc.. Turn-
pike Co. V. Jarrett, 4 Ind. 213.
Iowa. — German v. Heath, 139 Iowa 52, 116
N. W. 1051; Bowen v. Duffie, 66 Iowa 88, 23
N. W. 277.
Kentucky. — Kidd v. Bell, (1909) 122
S. W. 232.
Louisiana. — Meyer v. Schurbruck, 37 La.
Ann. 373.
Maryland. — Hoffar c. Dement, 5 Gill 132,
46 Am. Dec. 628.
Michigan. — Fenton f. Miller, 94 Mich. 204,
53 N. W. 957.
'New York. — Cruger v. McLaury, 41 N. Y.
219 [affirming 51 Barb. 642] ; Phelan v.
Kelly, 25 Wend. 389. Compare Jackson f.
O'Donaghy, 7 Johns. 247.
Porto Rico. — Soriano v. Arrese, 1 Porto
Eico Fed. 198, 201.
Texas. — McDougal v. Bradford, 80 Tex.
558, 16 S. W. 619; Rowland v. Murphy, 66
[II, A]
8 [38 CycJ
TENANCY IN COMMON
and the relation may be brought into existence by purchase, sale, or conveyance/
Tex. 534, 1 S. W. 658; Kirby r. Blake, (Civ.
App. 1909) 115 S. W. 074.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenanr.v in Com-
mon," § 6.
A widow and children are tenants in com-
mon witli the cotenants of the deceased. Mc-
Clure V. Colyear. 80 Cal. 378, 22 Pac. 175.
The widow and the heirs are tenants in
common until assignment of dower. Wooster
V. Hunts Lyman Iron Co., 38 Conn. 256;
Montague x,. Selb, 106 111. 49. And a widow
holding as dowress and as guardian vn, socage
of minor heirs is tenant in common with the
other heirs. Knolls v. Barnhart, 71 N. Y.
474.
A husband, heir at law of wife, thus hav-
ing undivided interest in realty, holds as
tenant in common with the other owners.
Thompson v. Sanders, 113 Ga. 1024, 39 S. E.
419.
In the Hawaiian Islands if a contingent re-
mainder vests in an only child and upon the
death of the child the property vests in the
parents, they are, by statute, tenants in com-
mon. Booth V. Baker, 10 Hawaii 543. On
the death of one partner his representatives
become tenants in common with the sur-
vivor. Un Wong, Admr. v. Kan Chu et al.,
5 Hawaii 225.
Surviving husband and heirs of wife. —
Property purchased during the lifetime of a
wife, in which she has an interest, creates,
upon her death, a tenancy in common be-
tween her surviving husband and her sur-
viving children. Rowland v. Murphy, 66 Tex.
534, 1 S. W. 658. But the heirs of the de-
ceased wife, and her surviving husband, are
not tenants in common in the wife's realty,
he being entitled to the exclusive possession
thereof as tenant by the curtesy. Martin v.
Castle, 193 Mo. 183, 91 S. W. 930.
The remainder-men of a life-tenant upon
her death became tenants in common with one
who had owned all of the common land ex-
cepting the life-interest and the remainder
thereof, and who had purchased the life-in-
terest. Austin V. Rutland R. Co., 17 Fed.
466, 21 Blatchf. 35«.
At common law tenancy in common could
not arise by descent. Jackson v. Livingston,
7 Wend. (N. Y.) 136; Pruden v. Paxton, 79
N. C. 446, 28 Am. Rep. 33?; Fisher v. Wigg,
1 P. Wms. 14, 24 Eng. Reprint 275. See also
2 Reeves Real Prop. § 685.
28. Alahama. — Ohmer v. Boyer, 89 Ala.
273, 7 So. 663; Smith v. Rice, 56 Ala. 417.
California. — Reed v. Spicer, 27 Cal. 57.
Georgia. — McRae v. Button, 95 Ga. 267, 22
S. E. 149; Grimes v. Little, 56 Ga. 649;
Bazemore v. Davis, 55 Ga. 504.
Hawaii. — Hayselden v. Wahineaea, 10
Hawaii 10.
Illinois. — Haven v. Mehlgarten, IS 111. 91.
Iowa. — Gilmore v. Jenkins, 129 Iowa 686,
106 N. W. 193.
Kansas. — ^Erskin v. Wood, 77 Kan. 577,
95 Pac. 413.
Kentucky. — Craig f. Taylor, 6 B. Mon.
457, holding that a deed to two persons by
[II, A]
one common boundary stating the particular
interests conveyed to each makes them ten-
ants in common.
Maine. — Brown v. Bates, 55 Me. 520, 92
Am. Dec. 613.
Massachusetts. — Higbee v. Rice, 5 Mass.
344, 4 Am. Dec. 63.
Missouri. — McCaul v. Kilpatrick, 46 Mo.
434.
Nelraska. — Schuster v. Schuster, 84 Nebr.
98, 120 N. W. 9-48.
New Jersey.— Jenkins v. Jenkins, (Ch.
1886) 5 Atl. 134.
New York. — Ferris v. Nelson, 60 N. Y.
App. Div. 430, 69 N. Y. Suppl. 99e ; St. Paul's
Church V. Ford, 34 Barb. 16; Hosford v.
Merwin, 5 Barb. 51; Mumford V. McKay, 8
Wend. 442, 24 Am. Dec. 34, holding that
where crops were raised in partnership and
a moiety of the land was conveyed to a
stranger, such conveyance created a tenancy
in common in the crops.
North Carolina. — Parker v. Viek, 22 N. C.
195; Cloud v. Webb, 14 N. C. 317.
Pennsylvania. — Coleman's Appeal, 62 Pa.
St. 252; Caines v. Grant, 5 Binn. 119; Bam-
baugh V. Bambaugh, 11 Serg. & R. 191.
South Carolina. — Green v. Cannady, 77
S. C. 193, 57 S. E. 832; Harvin v. Hodge,
Dudley 23. See also Fuller v. Missroom, 35
S. C. 314, 14 S. E. 714.
Tennessee. — Cheek v. Wheatley, 3 Sneed
484.
Wisconsin. — 'Richards v. Koenig, 24 Wis.
360; Welsh v. Sackett, 12 Wis. 243.
United States. — Gratz v. Land, etc.. Imp.
Co., 82 Fed. 381, 27 C. C. A. 305, 40 L. R. A.
393.
England. — Bryan v. Twigg, L. R. 3 Ch.
183, 37 L. J. Ch. 249, 19 Wkly. Rep. 298;
In re Pickworth, [1899] 1 Ch. 642, 68 L. J.
Ch. 324, 80 L. T. Rep. N. S. 212; In re
Atkinson, [1892] 3 Ch. 52, 61 L. J. Ch. 504,
66 L. T. Rep. N. S. 717, 40 Wkly. Rep. 666;
In re Yates, [1891] 3 Ch. 53, 64 L. T. Rep.
N. S. 819, 39 Wkly. Rep. 573 [disapproving
Shepherdson f. Dale, 12 Jur. N. S. 156, 13
L. T. Rep. N. S. 699]; Surtees t\ Surtees,
L. R. 12 Eq. 400, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 288,
19 Wkly. Rep. 1043; Ryves v. Ryves, L. R.
11 Eq. 539, 40 L. J. Ch. 252; Heasman f.
Pearse, L. R. 11 Eq. 522, 40 L. J. Ch. 258,
24 L. T. Rep. N. S. 864, 19 Wkly. Rep. 673
[aifirmed in L. R. 7 Ch. 275, 41 L. J. Ch.
705, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 299, 20 Wkly. Rep.
271] ; Hodges v. Grant, L. R. 4 Eq. 140, 36
L. J. Ch. 935, 15 Wkly. Rep. 607; Rigden
V. Vallier, 3 Atk. 731, 2 Ves. 252, 26 Eng.
Reprint 1219'; Haws v. Haws, 3 Atk. 524,
26 Eng. Reprint 1102, 1 Ves. 13, 27 Eng.
Reprint 859, 1 Wils. C. P. 165, 95 Eng. Re-
print 552; Ridout v. Pain, 3 Atk. 486, 26
Eng. Reprint 1080; Sheppard v. Gibbons, 2
Atk. 441, 26 Eng. Reprint 666; Ulrich v.
Litchfield, 2 Atk. 373, 26 Eng. Reprint 625;
Owen V. Owen, 1 Atk. 494, 26 Eng. Reprint
313; Leak v. Macdowall, 32 Beav. 28, 55
Eng. Reprint 11; Patterson f. Rowland, 28
Beav. 347, 54 Eng. Reprint 399; Haddelsey
TENANCY IN COMMON [38 Cyc] 9
It is not the form of instrument which determines the existence of the relation,
V. Adams, 22 Beav. 266, 2 Jur. N. S. 724, 25
L. J. Ch. 826, 52 Eng. Reprint 1110; In re
Tiverton Market Act, 20 Beav. 374, 1
Jur. N. S. 487, 24 L. J. Ch. 657, 3 Wkly.
Eep. 118, 52 Eng. Reprint 647; Ive v. King,
16 Beav. 46, 16 Jur. 489, 21 L. J. Ch. 560,
51 Eng. Reprint 693; Campbell v. Campbell,
4 Bro. Ch. 15, 29 Eng. Reprint 755; Arm-
strong V. Eldridge, 3 Bro. Ch. 215, 29 Eng.
Reprint 497 ; JoUiffe v. East, 3 Bro. Ch. 25,
29 Eng. Reprint 387; Edwards v. Champion,
3 De G. M. & G. 202, 1 Eq. Rep. 419, 23
L. J. Ch. 123', 1 Wkly. Rep. 497, 52 Eng.
Ch. 202, 43 Eng. Reprint 80 ; Gordon n. Atkin-
son, 1 De 6. & Sm. 478, 63 Eng. Reprint
1156; Lanphier v. Buck, 2 Dr. & Sm. 484, 11
Jur. N. S. 837, 34 L. J. Ch. 650, 12 L. T. Rep.
N. S. 660, 6 New Rep. 196, 13 Wkly. Eep. 767,
62 Eng. Reprint 704 ; Oakley v. Young, 3 Eq.
Cas. Abr. 536; Kenworthy v. Ward, 1 Eq.
Rep. 389, 11 Hare 196, 17 Jur. 1047, 1 Wkly.
Rep. 493, 45 Eng. Ch. 196, 68 Eng. Reprint
1245; Re Grove, 3 Giflfard 575, 9 Jur. N. S.
38, 6 L. T. Rep. N". S. 376, 66 Eng. Reprint
537; Taaffe v. Conmee, 10 H. L. Cas. 64, 8
jTir. N. S. 919, 6 L. T. Rep. N. S. 666, 11
Eng. Reprint 940; Trevor v. Trevor, 1 H. L.
Cas. 239 [affwming 13 Sim. 108, 6 Jur. 863,
11 L. J. Ch. 417, 36 Eng. Ch. 108, 60 Eng.
Reprint 42] ; Jones v. Randall, 1 Jac. & W.
100, 20 Rev. Rep. 237, 37 Eng. Reprint 313;
Harrison V. Barton, 1 Johns. & H. 287, 7
Jur. N. S. 519, 30 L. J. Ch. 213, 3 L. T. Rep.
N. S. 614, 9 Wkly. Rep. 177, 70 Eng. Reprint
756; Lyon v. Coward, 10 Jur. 486', 15 L. J.
Ch. 460, 15 Sim. 287, 38 Eng. Ch. 287,. 60
Eng. Reprint 628; Pearce f. Edmeades, 3
Jur. 245i 8 L. J. Exch. 61, 3 Y. & C. Exch.
246; Shepherdson v. Dale, 12 Jur. N. S. 156,
13 L. T. Rep. N. S. 69?; Hand v. North, 10
Jur. N. S. 7, 33 L. J. Ch. 556, 9 L. T. Rep.
N. S. 634, 3 New Rep. 239., 12 Wkly. Rep.
229; Booth V. Alington, 3 Jur. N. S. 835, 27
L. J. Ch. 117, 5 Wkly. Rep. 811; Bird v.
Swales, 2 Jur. N. S. 273, 4 Wkly. Rep. 227;
In re Jones, 47 L. J. Ch. 775, 26 Wkly. Rep.
828; Atty.-Gen. v. Sidney Sussex College, 38
L. J. Ch. 656; Sutcliffe v. Howard, 38 L. J.
Ch. 472; Be Moore, 31 L. J. Ch. 368, 6 L. T.
Rep. N. S. 43, 10 Wkly. Rep. 315 ; Grant v.
Winbolt, 23 L. J. Ch. 282, 2 Wkly. Rep. 151;
Eales V. Cardigan, 8 L. J. Ch. 11, 9 Sim. 384,
16 Eng. Ch. 384, 59 Eng. Reprint 405; Wood-
gate V. Atkins, 9 L. J. Ch. 0. S. 166; Be
Flower, 62 L. T. Rep. N. S. 216; Be Quirk,
61 L. T. Rep. N. S. 364, 37 Wkly. Rep. 796 ;
Jones V. Jones, 44 L. T. Rep. N. S. 642, 29
Wkly. Rep. 786; Crosthwaite v. Dean, 40
L. T. Rep. N. S. 837; Apsey f. Apsey, 36
L. T. Rep. N. S. 941 ; Garland v. Brown, 10
L. T. Eep. N. S. 292; Draycott v. Wood, 8
L. T. Rep. N. S. 304, 2 New Rep. 55; Bate-
man V. Roach, 9 Mod. 104, 88 Eng. Reprint
344; Doe v. Prestwidge, 4 M. & S. 178, 18
Rev. Rep. 436, 105 Eng. Reprint 800 ; Coe v.
Bigg, 1 New Rep. 536 ; Hamell v. Hunt, Prec.
Ch. 163, 24 Eng. Reprint 79 ; Taggart V. Tag-
^art, 1 Sch. & Lef. 84; Bridge v. Yates, 12
Sim. 645, 35 Eng. Ch. 545, 59 Eng. Reprint
1281 ; Peters v. Dipple, 12 Sim. 101, 35 Eng.
Ch. 86; Woodgate v. Unwin, 4 Sim. 129, 6
Eng. Ch. 129, 58 Eng. Eeprint 50; Barker v.
Lea, Turn. & E. 413, 24 Rev. Rep. 85, 12
Eng. Ch. 413, 37 Eng. Reprint 1160; Peiton
V. Banks, 1 Vern. Ch. 65, 23 Eng. Eeprint
314; Thickness v. Vernon, 1 Vern. Ch. 32, 23
Eng. Reprint 287; Stones v. Heurtley, 1 Ves.
165, 27 Eng. Reprint 959 ; Marryat v. Townly,
1 Ves. 102, 27 Eng. Reprint 918; Crooke v. De
Vandes, 11 Ves. Jr. 330, 32 Eng. Reprint
1115; Bolger v. Mackell, 5 Ves. Jr. 509, 31
Eng. Reprint 707 ; Perry v. Woods, 3 Ves. Jr.
204, 30 Eng. Reprint 970; Gant f. Lawrence,
Wightw. 395; Chatfield v. Berchtoldt, 18
Wkly. Rep. 8«7; Alt f. Gregory, 3 Wkly.
Rep. 630 [affirmed in 8 De G. M. & G. 221,
2 Jur. N. S. 577, 4 Wkly. Rep. 436, 57 Eng.
Ch. 172, 44 Eng. Reprint 375]; Alt f. Greg-
ory, 3 Wkly. Rep. 630 [affirmed in 8 De 6.
M. & 6. 221, 2 Jur. N. S.-577, 4 Wkly. Eep.
436, 57 Eng. Ch. 172, 44 Eng. Eeprint
375].
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 8.
A deed in trust for a woman and the heirs
of her deceased husband creates an estate in
common. Bazemore v. Davis, 55 Ga. 504.
Similarly land conveyed to a trustee on trust
for the benefit of life-tenants, " and upon the
death of the survivor then in trust to be ab-
solutely vested in such issue of their present
marriage as may be living," creates a ten-
ancy in common in the remainder-men taking
the land. Fuller v. Missroon, 35 S. C. 314,
14 S. E. 714.
Deeds made under a decree void as to some
heirs make the grantee a tenant in common
with those whose titles were not divested.
Downing v. Ford, 9 Dana (Ky.) 391.
Where a deed is not sufficient to convey
the interests of one of the grantors, he be-
comes a tenant in common with the vendee
therein. Cloud v. Webb, 14 N. C. 317.
Conveyance of part of a tract of land less
than the whole thereof without designating
its locality creates a tenancy in common be-
tween the grantor and the grantee (Gordon
1>. San Diego, 101 Cal. 522, 36 Pac. 18, 40
Am. St. Eep. 73 [affirming (1893) 32 Pac.
885]; Lawrence v. Ballou, 37 Cal. 518;
Schenk v. Evoy, 24 Cal. 104 ; Fisher v. Waile-
hua, 16 Hawaii 154; Gill f. Grand Tower
Min., etc., Co., 92 111. 249; Nowlen v. Hall,
128 Mich. 274, 87 N. W. 222; MeCaul v.
Kilpatrick, 46 Mo. 434; Anderson v. Donel-
son, 1 Yerg. (Tenn.) 197; Ashland Lodge
No. 63 L O. O. F. t: Williams, 100 Wis. 223,
75 N. W. 954, 69 Am. St. Eep. 912; McNiel v.
McNiel, 4 Nova Scotia 33), and the convey-
ance of an estate in common by the respect-
ive deeds of the tenants in common to several
grantees creates a tenancy in common be-
tween such grantees (Reed f. Spicer, 27 Cal.
57) ; but a grant of a part of property, in
severalty, to be assigned from a certain de-
scribed tract, does not create a tenancy in
common (U. S. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 6
Mont. 351, 12 Pac. 769).
[II, A]
10 [38 Cye.J
TENANCY IN COMMON
but the concurrent rights in the same property at the same time, and the tenancy
A sale of standing timber on designated
land, to be cut and rejnoved at a specified
rate, vests the exclusive title to the timber
in the purchasers, and leaves the exclusive
title to the land in the sellers, and does not
make the purchasers and sellers tenants in
common in either the land or the timber.
Dexter v. Lathrop, 136 Pa. St. 565, 20 Atl.
545 [distinguishing Wheeler v. Carpenter,
107 Pa. St. 271].
A purchase of encumbered property may
make the purchaser a tenant in common with
others owning an interest therein. Conn v.
Conn, 58 Iowa 747, 13 N. W. 51; Eoot v.
Stow, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 5; Herbert v. Odlin,
40 N. H. 267; Stoddard f. Weston, 3 Silv.
Sup. (N. Y.) 13, 6 N. Y. Suppl. 34.
A purchaser of the share of a tenant in
common becomes a, tenant in common with
the remaining owner or owners. Hewlett v.
Owens, 51 Cal. 570'; Stark v. Barrett, 15 Cal.
361; Barnum v. Landon, 25 Conn. 137;
Oviatt V. Sage, 7 Conn. 95; Fischer v. Esla-
man, 68 111. 78; Stevens v. Keynolds, 143
Ind. 467, 41 N. E. 931, 52 Am. St. Eep. 422;
Pope V. Brassfield, 110 Ky. 128, 61 S. W. 5,
22 Ky. L. Rep. 1613; Downing f. Ford, 9
Dana (Ky.) 391; Bell 1;. Layman, 1 T. B.
Mon. (Ky.) 39, 15 Am. Dec. 83; Estey v.
Boardman, 61 Me. 595; Liscomb v. Eoot, 8
Pick. (Mass.) 376; Cook v. Clinton, 64 Mich.
309, 31 N. W. 317, 8 Am. St. Rep. 816;
Alsobrook v. Eggleston, 69 Miss. 833, 13 So.
850; Childs v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 117
Mo. 414, 23 S. W. 373; Prentice v. Janssen,
79 N. Y. 478 [affirming 14 Hun 548] ; Big-
low V. Biglow, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 98, 77
N. Y. Suppl. 716; Messing v. Messing, 64
N. Y. App. Div. 125, 71 N. Y. Suppl. 717;
Archibald f. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 1
N. Y. App. Div. 251, 37 N. Y. Suppl. 336
[affirmed in 157 N. Y. 574, 52 N. E. 567];
Earnshaw v. Myers, 1 N. Y. Suppl. 901 ;
Northrop v. Wright, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 221;
St. John V. Standring, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 468;
Battle V. John, 49 Tex. 202; Hawkins f.
Hobson, (Tex. Civ. App. igoS) 123 S. W.
183; Hess t. Webb, (Tex. Civ. App. 1908)
113 S. W. 618; Heilbron v. St. Louis South-
western R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1908) 113
S. W. 610, 979; McAllen v. Raphael, 11 Tex.
Civ. App. 116, 32 S. W. 449; Kane v. Gar-
field, 60 Vt. 79, 13 Atl. 800; Spencer v. Aus-
tin, 38 Vt. 258 ; Vermont L. & T. Co. f. Car-
din, 19 Wash. 304, 53 Pac. 164; Wright t:
Sperry, 21 Wis. 331. Compare Weld v. Oli-
ver, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 559; York ;:. Hutche-
son, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 367, 83 S. W. 895.
Thus where land owned by an adult and in-
fants was sold, and the purchaser conveyed
to a third person the timber thereon, the
third person was a tenant in common with
those who succeeded to the infants' right to
avoid their conveyance, and he could go on
the premises and appropriate a part at least
of the timber. Hatton v. Bodan Lumber Co.,
(Tex. Civ. App. 1906) 123 S. W. 163. But
where one in adverse possession purchases the
undivided interest of one of several co-
[II, A]
claimants, merely to protect himself against
litigation, as is known to the other claim-
ants, he does not hold as tenant in common
with such claimants (Cooper i: Great Falls
Cotton Mills Co., 94 Tenn. 688, 30 S. W. 353),
and the conveyances by a tenant in common
of a portion of the common estate by metes
and bounds cannot in any event operate, con-
trary to the expressed declarations and in-
tentions of the parties, to convey an estate
in common, instead of an estate in severalty;
and a creditor of the grantee who levies his
execution upon an undivided share of the
whole common estate acquires no title as
tenant in common by virtue of such levy
(Soutter V. Porter, 27 Me. 405). Similarly
where .some of the heirs of the deceased
owner conveyed their interest to a, grantee,
the latter became a tenant in common with
the other heirs, and a srubsequent conveyance
by the grantee to a third person of a speci-
fied number of acres of the land was effective
as against the other heirs or their grantee as
a conveyance of the grantee's interest therein
only. Hawkins v. Hobson, (Tex. Civ. App.
1909) 123 S. W. 183.
Cotenant's deed of whole property. — If one
cotenant sells and conveys the entire prop-
erty to a stranger without the knowledge or
consent of his cotenant the purchaser does
not thereby become a cotenant with the re-
maining owner. Boggess v. Meredith, 16
W. Va. 1. The purchaser's title is a nullity
and the sale is void. Starnes v. Quin, 6 Ga.
84. Thus a deed from o^e of several coten-
ants to a person in exclusive possession, con-
veying all the property, does not make the
grantee a cotenant with the other holders of
a legal title so as to render his possession
not adverse. Frick v. Sinon, 75 Cal. 337, 17
Pac. 439, 7 Am. St. Rep. 177 ; King v. Car-
michael, 136 Ind. 20, 35 N. E. 509, 43 Am.
St. Eep. 303. It is held, however, that one
who assumes to purchase from one of two
tenants in common the entire interest of
both, the other not sanctioning the sale, be-
comes himself a tenant in common with the
other to the extent that the latter may hold
him liable if he converts the whole to his ex-
clusive use (Sims v. Dame, 113 Ind. 127, 15
N. E. 217), and a father, to whom after he
has conveyed lands in common to his chil-
dren, one of them reconveys his interest, al-
though by a deed purporting to convey the
entire tract, is held to thereby become a ten-
ant in common with his other children (Ste-
vens r. Wait, 112 111. 544).
Judicial sale. — A purchaser at a judicial
sale of the interest of a tenant in common
will occupy the place of him whose title he
acquired. Leonard v. Scarborough, 2 Ga. 73;
Fischer v. Eslaman, 68 HI. 78 ; Battle v. John,
49 Tex. 202; Wright v. Sperry, 21 Wis. 331.
But see Johnson i: Moser, 72 Iowa 523, 34
N. W. 314; McCormick v. Bishop, 28 Iowa
233.
The conveyance of an undivided interest in
crops creates the relation of tenants in com-
ninn between the seller and buyer. McAllen
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cycj 11
can arise by pledge or mortgage,^" by legislative grant,'" by prescription/' by judg-
ment or decree/^ by levy or execution,'*' or by confusion or intermingling of goods,
V. Raphael, 11 Tex. Civ. App. llfi, 32 S. W.
449; Vermont L. & T. Co. v. Cardin, 19 Wash.
304, 53 Pao. 164. Compare Nevels v. Ken-
tucky Lumber Co., 108 Ky. 550, 56 S. W.
969, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 247, 49 L. R. A. 416.
A purchase with common funds constitutes
the purchasers tenants in common. McRea v.
Button, 95 6a. 267, 22 S. E. 149; Roberts v.
Remy, 56' Ohio St. 249, 46 N. E. 1066.. This
is the case where tliere is a purchase of lands
by a partnership with partnership funds.
Greene v. Graham, 5 Ohio 264.
The contempoTaneous concurrent grant of
the same property to different persons makes
them tenants in common. Bambaugh v. Bam-
baugh, 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 191; Fuller v.
Missroon, 36 S. C. 314, 14 S. E. 714; Young
V. De Bruhl, 11 Rich. (S. C.) 638, 73 Am.
Dee. 127.
The assignment of an interest in a chattel
mortgage creates a tenancy in common.
Earll V. Stumpf, 56 Wis. 50, 13 N. W. 701;
McNiel V. McNiel, 4 Nova Scotia 33 ; Leech
f. Leech, 24 U. C. Q. B. 321.
Facts held not to establish a cotenancy by
a tax purchaser in land sold for delinquent
taxes see Sheean v. Shaw, 47 Iowa 411.
29. Smith v. Rice, 56 Ala. 417 (holding
that where a tenancy in common in the crop
is created between the owner or tenant of the
land and the cultiva,tor on shares of the crop,
and the owner or tenant of the land subse-
quently mortgages his interest in said crops,
the mortgagee becomes a tenant in oommon in
said crops with the cultivators thereof, until
after division thereof has been made) ; Brown
f. Bates, 55 Me. 520, 92 Am. Dec. 613. But
see Barteau v. Merriam, 52 Minn. 222, 53
N. W. 1061.
The concurrent execution and delivery of
two chattel mortgages makes the mortgagees
tenants in common of the property, and in a
suit for the conversion thereof they may, and
if required by defendant they must, bring
their action jointly. Welch v. Sackett, 12
Wis. 243.
Pledgee of share of cotenant. — Where a
warehouseman owns part of a larger uniform
mass, as wheat in an elevator, and pledges
his share therein by issuing and delivering
his own warehouse receipt, the pledgee be-
comes tenant in common with the other own-
ers. Hartford Nat. Exch. Bank v. Wilder,
34 Minn. 149, 24 N. W. 609.
A mortgage of the interest of a cotenant
or a foreclosure of such mortgage usually
creates the relationship of cotenancy between
the mortgagee or the purchaser at such sale,
and the mortgagor's cotenants. Smith v.
Rice, 56 Ala. 417; Young v. Williams, 17
Conn. 393; Conn v. Conn, 58 Iowa 747, 13
N. W. 51; Brown v. Bates, 5S Me. 520, 92
Am. Dee. 613; Nowlen v. Hall, 128 Mich.
274, 87 N. W. 222; Moreland f. Strong, 115
Mich. 211, 73 N. W. 140, 60 Am. St. Rep.
563; MeAllen v. Raphael, 11 Tex. Civ. App.
116, 32 S. W. 449; Vermont L. & T. Co. v.
Cardin, 19 Wash. 304, 53 Pac. 164; Wright
v. Sperry, 21 Wis. 331. Compare Barteau v.
Merriam, 52 Minn. 222, 53 N. W. 1061. Such
newly created cotenant by purchase is en-
titled to the use and occupation of the com-
mon property. Moreland v. Strong, 115 Mich.
211, 73 N. W. 140, 69 Am. St. Rep. 553.
The distinction between tenancy in common
and joint tenancy as applied to purchasers
or mortgagees disapproved see Harrison v.
Barton, 1 Johns. & H. 287, 7 Jur. N. S. 519,
30 L. J. Ch. 213, 3 L. T. Rep. N. S. 614, 9
Wkly. Rep. 177, 70 Eng. Reprint 756. Com-
pa/re Brown v. Bates, 65 Me. 520, 92 Am. Dec.
613.
A mortgagee of an interest in crops may
become a tenant in common with the owners
of the other interests therein; and his co-
tenants have no right to infringe upon or
interfere with his interests in the crop. Ar-
thur V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 61 Iowa 648, 17
N. W. 24; Porter V. Stone, 70 Miss. 291, 12
So. 208; McAUen v. Raphael, 11 Tex. Civ.
App. 116i 32 S. W. 449; Vermont L. & T. Co.
V. Cardin, 19 Wash. 304, 53 Pac. 164.
30. Haven v. Mehlgarten, 19 111. 91 ; Higbee
V. Rice, 5 Mass. 344, 4 Am. Dec. 63 ; Young v.
De Bruhl, 11 Rich. (S. C.) 638, 73 Am. Dec.
127; Challefoux v. Ducharme, 8 Wis. 287.
But see Rice v. Osgood, 9 Mass. 38.
31. Inglis V. Webb, 117 Ala. 387, 23 So.
125; Brock v. Benness, 29 Ont. 468.
32. McRea v. Dutton, 95 Ga. 267, 22 S. E.
149; Coleman's Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 252; Dorn
V. Beasley, 7 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 84. But see
Gray v. Kauffmann, 82 Tex. 65, 17 S. W.
513.
Deed under void decree. — Where a decree
against several heirs is void as to some, the
deed made thereunder makes the grantee a
tenant in common with those whose titles
were not divested by the decree and deed.
Downing v. Ford, 9 Dana (Ky.) 391.
33. Young V. Williams, 17 Conn. 393;
Leonard v. Scarborough, 2 Ga. 73; Strick-
land f. Parker, 54 Me. 263 (holding that by
levying on a judgment debtor's undivided
part of a marine railway and land on which
it is located, the judgment creditor becomes
tenant in common with the other owners) ;
Barney v. Leeds, 51 N. H. 253 (holding that
where a creditor causes the estate of his
debtor, of greater value than the homestead
right of the latter therein, to be set off on
execution, subject to such homestead right,
the creditor and the debtor, after the levy of
the creditor's execution, and before any pro-
ceedings by either for a separation and as-
signment of their respective interests, are
tenants in common of the estate ) .
Where executions are levied upon land by
two or more creditors at the same time each
acquires by levy a title to an undivided moi-
ety of the land, which they hold as tenants in
common. Cutting v. Rockwood, 2 Pick.
(Mass.) 443; Shove v. Dow, 13 Mass. 529;
Wiswall V. Wilkins, 5 Vt. 87.
[II, A]
12 [38 Cye.J
TENANCY IN COMMON
by consent or without the owner's fault.^* The estate may come to the tenants
in common in different parcels or by different instruments,^ and the tenants may
hold by different tenures," and the tenancy in common may be created in all
kinds of property, real and personal," and it may be of an inchoate, as well as
of a perfect, right.^* The law will not construe a coownership or occupancy of
property to be a tenancy in common, where another kind of tenancy is called
for by the expressed intention of the parties or by the circumstances surround-
ing the case."' A cotenancy and the proportionate amounts of interests therein
34. Low V. Martin, 18 111. 286'; Tufts v.
McClintock, 28 Me. 424, 48 Am. Dec. 501
Van Liew v. Van Liew, 36 N. J. Eq. 637
Morgan v. Gregg, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 183
Moore v. Erie R. Co., 7 Lana. (N. Y.) 39'
And see Confusion of Goods, 8 Cyc. 574,
note 28.
Confusion of grain by the bailee thereof of
various bailors, without express agreement,
but according to custom, creates a tenancy in
common therein between said bailors. Law-
rence V. Ballou, 37 Cal. 518; Gill f. Grand
Tower Min., etc., Co., 92 111. 249; Arthur v.
Chicago, etc., E. Co., 61 Iowa 648, 17 N. W.
24; Nelson v. Brown, 53 Iowa 555, 5 N. W.
719; Hall v. Pillsbury, 43 Minn. 33, 44 N. W.
673, 19 Am. St. Hep. 209, 7 L. R. A. 529.
The pledgee of part of a uniform mass, as
wheat in an elevator, is a tenant in common
therein. Hartford Nat. Exch. Bank v. Wilder,
34 Minn. 149, 24 N. W. 699.
A special agent commingling Ms own prop-
erty with that of his principal cannot thus,
without his principal's consent, create a ten-
ancy in common. Hall v. Page, 4 Ga. 42€,
48 Am. Dec. 235.
35. Wright v. Wright, 59 How. Pr. (N. Y.)
176.
36. Wright f. Wright, 59 How. Pr. (N. Y.)
176; Putnam v. Ritchie, 6 Paige (N. Y.)
390.
37. Cheek v. Wheatley, 3 Sneed (Tenn.)
484; Waggoner v. Snody, 98 Tex. 512, 85
S. W. 1134.
Tenancy in common in a slave see Cheek
V. Wheatley, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 484.
Tenancy in common in an option see Var-
ley Duplex Magnet Co. v. Ostheimer, 159 Fed.
655, 86 C. C. A. 523.
A homestead may be owned and occupied
by husband and wife as tenants in common
under statutes. Thorn v. Thorn, 14 Iowa 49,
81 Am. Dec. 451; Lozo v. Sutherland, 38
Mich. 168 ; Horn v. Tufts, 39 N. H. 478 ; Mc^
Clary v. Bixby, 36 Vt. 254, 84 Am. Dec.
684.
38. Wilkins v. Burton, 5 Vt. 76.
39. California. — Fairchild v. MuUan, 90
Cal. 190, 27 Pac. 201 ; Tully v. Tully, 71 Cal.
338, 12 Pac. 246.
Colorado. — Telluride v. Davis, 33 Colo. 355,
80 Pac. 1051, 108 Am. St. Rep. 101.
Connecticut.— Wooster v. Hunts Lyman
Iron Co., 38 Conn. 256.
Indiana. — Pulse l'. Osborn, (App. 1901)
60 N. E. 374; Anderson School Tp. v. Milroy
Lodge F. & A. M. No. 139, 130 Ind. 108, 29
N. E. 411, 30 Am. St. Rep. 206; Centreville,
etc., Turnpike Co. v. Jarett, 4 Ind. 213.
Iowa. — Willcuts V. Rollins, 85 Iowa 247,
[II. A]
52 N. W. 199; Johnson v. Moser, 72 Iowa
523i, 34 N. W. 314; McCormick V. Bishop, 28
Iowa 233.
Maine. — Soper v. Lawrence Brothers Co.,
98 Me. 268, 56 Atl. 908, 99 Am. St. Rep. 397 ;
Abbott V. Wood, 13 Me. 115.
Massachusetts. — Hurd v. Gushing, 7 Pick.
169; Rice v. Osgood, 9 Mass. 38,
Minnesota. — Barteau v. Merliam, 52 Minn.
222, 53 N. W. 1061.
Missouri. — Martin v. Castle, 193 Mo. 183,
91 S. W. 930; Badger Lumber Co. v. Stepp,
157 Mo. 366', 57 S. W. 1059.
Montana. — U. S. v. Northern Pac. R. Co.,
» Mont. 351, 12 Pac. 769.
Nebraska. — Barr t". Lamaster, 48 Nebr.
114, 66 N. W. 1110, 32 L. R. A. 451.
New Sampshire. — Wiggin v. Wiggin, 43
N. H. 5«1, 80' Am. Dec. 1'92.
New Jersey. — Patten v. Heustis, 26 N. J. L.
293.
New York. — Strong v. Harris, 84 Hun 314.
32 N. Y. Suppl. 349; Matter of Lent, 1 Misc.
264, 22 N. Y. Suppl. 917.
Ohio. — Lockwood v. Mills, 3 Ohio 21.
Pennsylvania. — Enyard v. Enyard, 190 Pa.
St. 114, 42 Atl. 526, 70 Am. St. Rep. 623;
Dexter v. Lathrop, 136 Pa. St. 565, 20 Atl.
645; McAdam t. Orr, 4 Watts & S. 550;
Seitzinger v. Ridg^vay, 4 Watts & S. 472;
Ross V. McJunkin, 14 Serg. & R. 364.
Philippine. — Liuanag v, Yu-Sonquian, 5
Philippine 147.
Tennessee.— CooTper v. Great Falls Cotton
Mill Co., 94 Tenn. 588, 30 S. W. 353.
Texas. — Roller v. Reid, 87 Tex. 69, 26 S. W.
1060; Gray v. Kauffman, 82 Tex. 65, 17 S. W.
513; York V. Hutcheson, 37 Tex. Civ. App.
367, 83 S. W. 895.
Vermont. — Shed v. Leslie, 22 Vt. 498 ;
Willard v. Strong, 14 Vt. 532, 39 Am. Dec.
240.
Washington. — Anderson v. Snowden, 44
Wash. 274, 87 Pac. 356; Houghton v. Calla-
han, 3 Wash. 158, 28 Pac. 377.
West Virginia. — Morris v. Roseberry, 46
W. Va. 24, 32 S. E. 1019.
Wyoming. — Gilland v. Union Pa,c. R. Co.,
6 Wyo. 185, 43 Pac. 50S.
Trustees of a town in whom the title of
land becomes vested hold the fee as a unity
having no separable title or interest avail-
able of being converted into a tenancy in
common. Augusta v. Perkins, 3 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 437.
Surface and mineral rights. — Where one
person owns the metal and mineral rights in
land and another owns the fee to the svtrface,
they are not tenants in common. Adams r.
Briggs Iron Co., 7 Cush. (Mass.) 361; Vir-
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 13
having been shown they will be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, to continue.^"
B. Severance and Termination. Tenancy in common being dependent
upon unity of possession/' whenever that unity is destroyed, the tenancy ter-
minates.*^ Thus, the tenancy is dissolved by uniting all the titles and interests
in one tenant by purchase or otherwise, which brings the whole to one severalty,"
by ouster of one tenant in common by his cotenant," by sale or conveyance of
the common property to a third person^ and the ascertainment of the share of
each cotenant,*° by the destruction of the common property,*' or by making
partition between the several tenants in common which gives them all respective
severalties, either by proceedings in partition,*' or by amicable agreement and
division.*" But until actual severance of the common property the tenancy in
ginia Coal, etc., Co. v. Kelly, 93 Va. 332, 24
S. E. 1020.
Where an inheritance consisted of city lots
which are described in plats as separate, each
lot constitutes a separate holding unless
rented, occupied, or otherwise charged in com-
mon with others. Butler v. Roys, 25 Mich.
53, 12 Am. Rep. 218.
40. Simon x,. Richard, 42 La. Ann. 842, 8
So. 629; Clayton v. McCay, 143 Pa. St. 225,
22 Atl. 754; Gilmer f. Beauchamp, 40 Tex.
Civ. App. 125, 87 S. W. 907.
41. See supra, I, A; II, A.
42. Norman v. Corbley, 32 Mont. 195, 70
Pac. 1059.
Occupancy in severalty may be consistent
with a tenancy in common. Matter of New
York, 41 Misc. (N. Y.) 134, 83 N. Y. Suppl.
951.
43. Hinds v. Terry, Walk. (Miss.) 80;
Jackson v. Burtis, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 391.
Where a cotenant purchases the joint prop-
erty at a sale in partition under a decree of
court, the cotenancy is thereby severfd. Ste-
phens V. Ells, 65 Mo. 456.
44. Vasquez v. Ewing, 24 Mo. 31, 66 Am.
Dec. 694, ouster under a judgment for pos-
session.
45. Davis v. Cass, 72 Miss. 985, 18 So. 454,
sale to the state for taxes.
Conveyance with reservation by one coten-
ant. — Where a, tenant in common conveyed
his interest by a deed providing that the land
should be used only as a park, and reserving
a right to work a mine thereon, and the other
cotenant conveyed to the same grantee with-
out reservation, the grantor who made the
reservation had the sole and exclusive right
to work the mine, and did not hold the right
in common with the other cotenant. New
Haven v. Hotehkiss, 77 Conn. 168, 58 Atl.
753. But where a tenant in common con-
veyed his interest in the premises, reserving
mineral rights, to a cotenant, the tenancy in
common in the mineral rights was not dis-
turbed, and in the absence of an open, notori-
ous assertion of claim by the vendee to the
minerals and some direct interference with or
denial of the vendor's rights therein, the ven-
dor was justiiied in assuming that the ven-
dee's holding of tlie land was in accordance
with the terms of his deed, and there was no
such ouster as to set limitations in motion
against the vendor's interest in the mineral
rights. MoragTie v. Doe, 143 Ala. 459, 39 So.
161, HI Am. St. Rep. 52.
An agreement by heirs to give their inter-
est in land to the widow, one of them to pro-
cure tax title and convey the land to her,
divests them of their interest as tenants in
common, although, after the tax title is pro-
cured, she agrees that the one procuring it
shall have the land, and although no actual
conveyance was made to the widow. Howe V.
Howe, 90 Iowa 582, 58 N. W. 908.
The sale of the common estate under a
power severs the tenancy, even though one
of the tenants in common therein repurchase
the estate from the vendee. Jackson v. Bur-
tis, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 391.
The sale of a part of the common property
does not sever the cotenancy in the balance
thereof. Wright v. Wright, 59 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 176; James V. James, (Tenn. Ch.
App. 1901) 62 S. W. 184.
If a cotenant conveys an undivided interest
equal to or greater than that which he pos-
sesses in said common property, he thereby
severs his relationship thereto. Lopez v.
Ilustre, 5 Philippine 567. Where a member
of a partnership owning land in common dies,
and his cotenant therein conveys an undi-
vided half thereof, merely describing himself
as surviving partner, he thereby severs his
relationship of cotenancy in said land. Gil-
lett V. Gaffney, 3 Colo. 351.
46. Palmer v. Stryker, 12 N. Y. Suppl.
737.
The sale of the common property for taxes
to several persons other than the tenants
in common, the claim in severalty by each of
them being recognized by the others of them,
severs the tenancy in common. Davis v.
Cass, 72 Miss. 985, 18 So.' 454.
47. See Hinds v. Terry, Walk. (Miss.)
80.
If the interests of tenants in common are
sold under execution and purchased by differ-
ent parties, there is no destruction of the
common ownership amounting to a severance
of the tenancy in common. Hinds v. Terry,
Walk. (Miss.) 80.
48. See Partition, 30 Cyc. 145.
49. McKeithen v. Pratt, 53 Ala. 116; Gaf-
ford V. Stearns, 51 Ala. 434; Whitten v. Han-
son, 35 Me. 435; Primm v. Walker, 38 Mo.
94; Lobdell n. Stowell, 51 N. Y. 70. But see
Campbell v. Shivers, 1 Ariz. 161, 25 Pac. 540.
[II B]
14 [38 Cyc]
TENANCY IN COMMON
common continues,'" a mere agreement to sever without actual severance being
insufficient/' Nor can a tenancy in common be severed by words in a deed,
uncertain and ambiguous.^^ Ordinarily one tenant in common cannot himself
take his own share withouh the consent of his cotenant and thus sever the tenancy
in common; ^ but when the common property is personalty divisible by weight,
measure, or number into portions identical in quality and value one tenant in
common may take his own proportion and thus make a valid partition/'' The
tenants in common may transfer their respective interests to other persons at
different periods without a destruction of the tenancy in common, unless the unity
of possession be destroyed by the act of the parties,^'' and where two persons
are owners of a chattel indivisible in its nature, a sale by one of them of his share
does not sever the tenancy; '" nor does the fact that the subject of a tenancy,
which has descended to the cotenants as tenants in common, is handed over to
them in different parcels or by different instruments destroy the tenancy in com-
mon/' The fact that one tenant in common furnishes no money to aid in defend-
ing the title in a suit brought against his cotenant in possession does not amount
to an abandonment of the former's title,'* and mere lapse of time does not dissolve
a cotenancy/' Where a partial division is rightfully made each tenant in common
holds his own assigned portion in severalty and remains a tenant in common of
the undivided residue/"
III. MUTUAL RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND LIABILITIES OF COTENANTS AND
INCIDENTS OF RELATION.
A. Fiduciary Relation of Cotenants Inter Se. While it is held that
in the absence of some equitable reason to the contrary, tenants in common do
The insertion of a clause in a deed in com-
mon that the several owners shall occupy
separate parts of the common property does
not sever the cotenancy therein; nor does the
sale of a part of the common property sever
the tenancy in common in the balance thereof.
Dallagher v. Dallagher, 171 Mass. 503, 50
N. E. 1043.
Where tenants in common of a quantity of
grain agreed to a division thereof to settle
the portion belonging to one, the apportion-
ment operates as a severance of the tenancy
in common. Lobdell f. Stowell, 51 N. Y. 70.
.50. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hart, 119
Ind. 273, 21 N. E. 753, 4 L. E. A. 549.
A tenancy in common to a water ditch,
arising under a deed, is not severed by claim-
ing under a promise or parol license from a
third person, where the deed and promise
appear to be parts of the same transaction.
Campbell v. Shivers, 1 Ariz. 161, 2S Pac. 540.
51. Burton v. Morris, 3 Harr. (Del.) 269
(holding that an agreement between tenants
in common that each shall have, collect, re-
ceive, and enjoy the ground-rents of certain
lots held in common, to him, his heirs and as-
signs forever, and clear from the other, did not
sever the tenancy in common, there being no
words of conveyance) ; Louisville, etc., R. Co.
V. Hart, 119 Ind. 273, 21 N. E. 753, 4 L. R. A.
549. But see Howe v. Howe, 90 Iowa 582, 58
N. W. 908, holding that an agreement by
heirs to give their interest in land to the
widow, one of them to procure tax title and
convey the land to her, divests them of their
interest as tenants in common, although, after
the tax title is procured, she agrees that the
one procuring it shall have the land, and
[II, B]
although no actual conveyance was made to
the widow.
Unexecuted agreement. — An agreement to
sever the property upon one tenant in com-
mon giving a note for his share does not
amount to a severance of the tenancy, the
tenant in commor. having failed to give the
note in accordance with the agreement.
Barnes v. Bartlett, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 71.
52. Dallagher i.. Dallagher, 171 Mass. 503,
50 N. E. 1043.
53. Pickering v. Moore, 67 N. H. 533, 32
Atl. 828, 68 Am. St. Rep. 695, 31 L. R. A.
698.
54. Pickering •;;. Moore, 67 N. H. 533, 32
Atl. 828, 68 Am. St. Rep. 695, 31 L. R. A.
698; Moore v. Erie R. Co., 7 Lans. (N. Y.)
39; Channon v. Lusk, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 211;
Fobes V. Shattuck, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 568;
Tripp V. Riley, 15 Barb. (N. Y.) 333. And
see Nelson -c. Brown, 53 Iowa 555, 5 N. W.
719.
55. Hinds v. Terry, Walk. (Miss.) 80,
where the interests of the tenants in com-
mon were sold under execution and purchased
by different parties.
56. St. John V. Standring, 2 Johns. (N. Y.)
468.
57. Wright v. Wright, 59 How. Pr. (N. Y.)
17fi.
58. Gosselin v. Smith, 154 111. 74, 39 N. E.
980. But see Potter «. Herring, 57 Mo. 184.
.59. Yarwood K. Johnson, 29 Wash. 643, 70
Pac. 123.
60. McKeithen v. Pratt, 53 Ala. 116; Gaf-
ford v. Stearns, 51 Ala. 434; Fiquet I?. Alli-
son, 12 Mich. 328, 86 Am. Deo. 54; Lobdell v
Stowell, 51 N. Y. 70.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 15
not stand in a strictly fiduciary relation toward each other, '^ and that where
tenants in common are not partners and there is no relation of mutual trust and
confidence between them, such as requires a disclosure from one to the other of
matters within his knowledge that may affect the price or value of the respective
shares they may deal with each other like other owners of separate property, °^
their relation is to an extent quasi-fiduciary,"^ and one cotenant guilty of fraud
may not avail himself of the advantage thereof, to the disadvantage of his
cotenant.** Tenants in common by descent occupy a confidential relation toward
each other by operation of law, as to the joint property, and the same reciprocal
duties are imposed as if a joint trust were created by contract between them or
by the act of a third person, and their mutual duties and obligations to sustain
and protect the common interest will be vindicated and enforced in a court of
equity as a trust; and they and those claiming under them, with notice, cannot
assume a hostile attitude toward each other in reference to the common
property. "'' Even where the cotenants acquired their interests by a joint con-
61. Streeter v. Shultz, 45 Hun (N. Y.)
406 [affirmed, in 127 N. Y. 652, 27 N. E.
857]; Kennedy v. De Tiafford, [1897] A. C.
180, 66 L. J. Ch. 413, 76 L. T. Rep. N. S. 427,
45 Wkly. Kep. 671.
Tenants in common of a vessel who are not
jointly in the employment of purchasing or
building ships for sale do not stand in such
relation of mutual trust and confidence to-
ward each other in respect to the sale of such
vessel that each is bound in his dealings with
the other to communicate all the information
of facts within his knowledge which may
aflfeot the price or value. A different rule
may prevail in respect to any contract for
the use or employment of the common prop-
erty, in which relation they may be deemed
to place confidence mutually in each other.
In dealing with each other in matters
of purchase and sale, each may act upon
the knowledge that he has without com-
municating it; but there must be no studied
efforts to prevent the other from coming to
the truth, nor any false suggestions or repre-
sentation. Matthews v. Bliss, 22 Pick. (Mass.)
48.
A tenant in common is not trustee for his
cotenant; he need not keep possession for
him, nor protect the common property except-
ing while he is in possession thereof, and
then he is only liable for profits derived from
his cotenant's share thereof; when he parts
with the possession of the common property
he parts with its liabilities. Saunders v. Gat-
lin, 21 N. C. 86.
62. Matthews v. Bliss, 22 Pick. (Mass.)
48, holding also that in a suit between coten-
ants for the recovery of damages for misrep-
resentation of the value of the plaintiff's
share in a vessel, evidence tending to prove
that the full value of said share had been
paid by defendant to plaintiff was admissible
to disprove fraud and was proper for the
consideration of the jury, although the price
for which the vessel was sold by defendant
was strong, although not conclusive evidence
of its value.
63. Walker v. Evans, 98 Mo. App. 301, 71
S. W. 1086; Burhans v. Van Zandt, 7 N. Y.
523; Smith v. Smith, 150 N. C. 81, 63 S. E.
177; Earll D. Stumpf, 56 Wis. 50, 13 N. W.
701.
Where a tenant in common buys or sells
the common property or anything appurte-
nant or necessary thereto, the cost or pro-
ceeds of which are properly chargeable to the
common property, or are properly to be cred-
ited thereto, and the purchase or sales price
by the bargaining cotenant is not fairly dis-
closed to his cotenants, or is concealed from
them, the presumptions of law are against
the tenant in common so failing to make dis-
closure or concealing, as the case may be.
King V. Wise, 43i Cal. 628 ; Garr v. Boswell,
38 S. W. 513, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 814.
Where there was an agreement between
tenants in common for the purchase of the
common property at a certain price for their
benefit at a foreclosure sale under a mechan-
ic's lien, and said property was purchased at
a lesser price for the benefit of the purchaser,
he was accountable to his cotenant for the
cotenant's share of the abatement so obtained.
Phelps v. Reeder, 39' 111. 172.
64. Calkins v. Worth, 117 111. App. 478
laffirmed in 215 111. 78, 74 N. E. 81] ; Garr r.
Boswell, 38 S. W. 513, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 814;
Lewis V. Jacobs, 153 Mich. 664, 117 N. W.
325; Clevenger v. Mayfield, (Tex. Civ. App.
1905) 86 S. W. 1062.
Where one tenant in common unduly delays
recording the title deed, another grantee in
common may compel him to have it recorded.
Smith V. Cole, 39 Hun (N. Y.) 248 [affirmed
in 10i9 N. Y. 436, 17 N. E. 356].
Purchase and sale. — A part-owner of realty
negotiating a sale thereof, for himself and
as agent of his cotenant therein, and not dis-
closing the true purchase-price to said coten-
ant is liable to account to said cotenant for
any amount out of which he may have thus
been defrauded. Calkins v. Worth, 117 111.
App. iT& [affirmed in 215 111. 78, 74 N. E. 81].
But selling the common property at two
thousand dollars profit about a year after its
purchase by one of the tenants in common is
no evidence of fraud in an action thirteen
years thereafter where there is no evidence
that the other cotenants had asked to be per-
mitted to share in the transaction. Francis
V. Million, 80 S. W. 486, 26 Ky. L. Rep.
42.
65. Arkansas. — Clements r. Gates, 49 Ark.
242, 4 S. W. 776.
[Ill, A]
16 [38 Cyc]
TENANCY IN COMMON
veyance, both going into possession, the relation between them may be one of
equal trust and confidence; ^^ and so, although they come to their titles by dif-
ferent grants they may, by a course of behavior, create the same confidential
relationship on the principle that particular persons in contracts shallnot only
transact hona fide between themselves, but shall not transact Tnala fide in respect
to other persons, who stand in such a relation to either as to be affected by the
contract or the consequences of it." It has been held that the defrauding tenant
in common cannot rely upon mere lapse of time to defeat his cotenants' rights."'
B. Use and Enjoyment of Premises — 1. Right of Entry. Each tenant
in common has the right of entry, and of ingress and egress, "^ which right is several
as weU as common, and therefore may be conferred by one cotenant without the
consent of the others,™ and for which under proper circumstances a writ of entry
may be maintained by one tenant in common against the other.'' The writ
"New York. — Van Home t'. Fonda, 5 Johns.
Ch. 388.
Ohio. — Lesslie v. Worthington, Wright 628.
Tennessee. — Tisdale v. Tisdale, 2 Sneed
596, 64 Am. Dec. 775.
England. — In re Biss, [1903] 2 Ch. 40.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 22.
Relocation of mining claim. — Evidence that
one of the cotenants in a mining camp gave
a description of such claim, after the dis-
covery of valuable rock in the neighborhood,
to his brother who took the necessary steps
for the relocation of the claim by the coten-
ant in the name of his brother, was held to
be sufficient to sustain a finding of fraud.
Yarwood v. Johnson, 29 Wash. 643, 70
Pac. 123.
66. Harrison v. Winston, 2 Tenn. Ch. 544.
67. Hoyt V. Lightbody, 98 Minn. 189, 108
N. W. 843, 116 Am. St. Eep. 389; Free-
man Coten. § 151. But see Shaver v.
Eadley, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 31.0, holding that
where one takes possession of land as one of
a number of devisees, and subsequently learns
that the devisor's title was invalid, and takes
a lease from the true owner at an annual
rent, the lease is taken free of any trust in
favor of the other devisees.
The principle is based upon a community
of interest in a common title, which creates
such a relation of trust and confidence be-
tween the parties that it would be inequi-
table to permit one of them to do anything
to the prejudice of the other, in reference to
the property so situated (Hoyt v. Lightbody,
98 Minn. 189, 108 N. W. 843, 116 Am. St.
Rep. 358; Eothwell v. Dewees, 2 Black (U. S.)
613, 17 L. ed. 309), and it is frequently ap-
plied with the same force and reason as to
persons standing in a direct fiduciary rela-
tion to others {Davis i,-. Cass, 72 Miss. 985,
18 So. 454; Carpenter v. Carpenter, 131 N. Y.
101, 29 N. B. 1013, 27 Am. St. Rep. 569;
Knolls V. Barnhart, 71 IT. Y. 474; Allen V.
Arkenburgh, 2 N. Y. App. Div. 452, 37 N. Y.
Suppl. 1032 [affirmed in 158 N. Y. 697, 53
N. E. 1122]; Cecil r. Clark, 47 W. Va. 402,
35 S. E. 11, 8il Am. St. Rep. 802, 44 W. Va.
65'9, 30 S. E. 216). In any event whether
there is a fiduciary relation between tenants
in common or not, there must not be any
studied effort on the part of either to pre-
vent the other from coming into knowledge
[HI, A]
of the truth. Matthews V. Bliss, 22 Pick.
(Mass.) 48.
68. Pillow t'. Southwest Virginia Imp. Co.,
92 Va. 144, 23 S. E. 32, 53 Am. St. Rep. 804.
But see Francis v. Million, 80 S. W. 486,
26 Ky. L. Rep. 42; holding that the fact that
a tenant in remainder purchased land at a
judicial sale, which he sold a year later for
two thousand dollars, is not evidence that
the original sale was fraudulent as to the
purchaser's cotenants who did not ask to be
permitted to enjoy the benefit of the trans-
action for nearly thirteen years thereafter.
Compare Kennedy v. Bateman, 27 Grant Ch.
(U. C.) 380.
69. Lee v. Follensby, 80 Vt. 182, 67 Atl.
197.
An entry made by or for the benefit of a
stranger, under fraudulent or unfair circum-
stances, canot be supported as against the
one truly entitled to entry. Yarwood v.
Johnson, 29 Wash. 643, 70 Pac. 123.
Adverse possession alone will not take
away a right of entry between tenants in
common, the entry being considered for the
benefit of all. Midford v. Hardison, 7 N. C.
164.
70. Lee v. Follensby, 80 Vt. 182, 67 Atl.
197.
71. Williams v. Gray, 3 Me. 207, 14 Am.
Dec. 234, redemption from tax-sale.
Parties. — Where suit is brought against a
tenant in common in possession for the right
of entry, all desiring benefit of a, recovery
must be made parties thereto. Keith c.
Keith, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 363, 87 S. W.
384.
Right of entry to make crops.— Where the
owner of land has contracted with another
for the raising of crops in such a manner that
they become tenants in common therein, there
is a qualified interest in the land permitting
ingress and egress for the proper enforce-
ment of the rights of said cotenants in the
premises. Delaney v. Root, 99 Mass. 546,
97 Am. Dec. 52. But the right of entry of
a cotenant in the land does not in itself
entitle him to the grain grown thereon not
then divided or set apart. Baker v. Lewis
150 Pa. St. 251, 24 Atl. 616. Under the
Alabama code of 1896, section 2760', persons
jointly contributing to the raising of crops
have been held to hold them by such a ten-
ancy in common as to entitle them to a lien
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 17
cannot be maintained as against a redeeming cotenant in favor of a cotenant
failing to make tender of his contribution of tlie amount for which the land was
sold for non-payment of taxes, nor where there is an actual ouster of the other
cotenants or some act deemed by law equivalent thereto; '^ nor where the cotenant's
entry is under claim of the whole property," and a tenant in common is not
entitled to an action against his cotenant for entry and exclusive occupation of
the common property.'*
2. Equal Right to Use and Enjoyment. Each tenant in common is equally
entitled to the use, benefit, and possession of the common property, and may
exercise, acts of ownership in regard thereto," the limitation of his right being
for their respective shares. Hendricks v.
Clemmons, 147 Ala. 590, 41 So. 306'.
73. Watlcina v. Eaton, 30 Me. 529, 50 Am.
Dec. 637 ; Cutts v. King, 5 Me. 482 ; Beall v.
McMenemy, 63 Nebr. 70, 88 N. W. 134, 93
Am. St. Eep. 427; Armijo v. Neher, 11 N. M.
645, 72 Pac. 12.
73. Gill V. Fauntleroy, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.)
177.
74. Porter v. Hooper, 13 Me. 25, 29 Am.
Dec. 480.
75. Alabama. — Newbold t. Smart, 67 Ala.
326.
Arkansas. — Bertrand v. Taylor, 32 Ark.
470.
Connecticut. — Adama v. Manning, 31
Conn. 5.
Georgia. — Haden v. Sims, 127 Ga. 717, 56
S. E. 9«9; Daniel v. Daniel, 102 Ga. 181, 28
S. E. 167.
Hawaii. — Lui v. Kaleikini, 10 Hawaii 391;
Mahoe v. Puka, 4 Hawaii 485.
Illinois. — Boley v. Banitio, 120 111. 1'9'2, 11
N. E. 393.
Iowa. — Young v. Gammel, 4 Greene 207.
Kentucky. — Bell v. Layman, 1 T. B. Mon.
39, 15 Am. Dec. 83.
Maine. — Carter v. Bailey, 64 Me. 458, 18
Am. Eep. 273; Hutchinson v. Chase, 39 Me.
508, 63 Am. Dec. 645; Knox V. Silloway, 10
Me. 201.
Massachusetts. — Peabody v. Minot, 24
Pick. 329.
Michigan. — McElroy v. O'Callaghan, 112
Mich. 124, 70 N. W. 441; Clow f. Plummer,
85 Mich. 550, 48 N. W. 795; Wilmarth v.
Palmer, 34 Mich. 347; Everts v. Beach, 31
Mich. 136, 18 Am. Rep. 169.
Minnesota. — ■ Strong v. Colter, 13 Minn. 82.
Mississippi. — Porter v. Stone, 70 Miss.
291, 12 So. 208.
Missouri. — Eagan v. McCoy, 29 Mo. 356;
Watson V. Union Eed, etc., Gravel Co., 60
Mo. App. 635.
Tffew Jersey. — Swallow v. Swallow, 31 N. J.
Eq. 390.
THew York. — Hudson v. Swan, 83 N. Y.
552; Osborn v. Schenck, 83 N. Y. 201; Roder-
mund V. Clark, 46i N. Y. 354; Simonson v.
Lauck, 105 N. Y. App. Div. 82, 93 N. Y.
Suppl. 965; McCarthy v. McCarthy, 40 Misc.
180, 81 N. Y. Suppl. 660; Matter of Lucy, 4
Misc. 349, 24 N. Y. Suppl. 352; Erwin v.
Olmsted, 7 Cow. 229. See also Moore v.
Goedel, 34 N. Y. 527 [affirming 7 Boew. 591],
holding that where a declaration alleges
damages resulting from an overflow of water
[2]
caused by a cotenant's negligence in leaving
a faucet open, the burden is upon plaintiff to
prove sucli negligence; because, the cotenant
being equally entitled to the possession of the
common property, there is no presumption
that defendant was in sole possession at the
time of the happening of the alleged
damages.
Pennsylvania. — Kline f. Jacobs, 68 Pa. St.
57; Heil v. Strong, 44 Pa. St. 264; Under-
wood's Estate, 5 Pa. Co. Ct. 621; Norris v.
Gould, 15 Wkly. Notes Cas. 187. See also
Keisel v. Earnest, 21 Pa. St. 90, holding that
proof of a lease to a tenant in common for a
certain year is no evidence of a lease for
the following year, where the lessee there-
under was a tenant in common and therefore
entitled to occupancy.
Rhode Island. — Almy v. Daniels, 15' R. I.
312, 4 Atl. 753, 10 Atl. 654, holding that
evidence that plaintiff has had the use and
benefit of the common property fully equal
to his share is inadmissible, because he has
the right to the use and occupation of the
whole property and cannot be limited therein
to any particular part.
Vermont. — Avery v. Hall, 50 Vt. 11;
Walker v. Pierce, 38 Vt. 94; Bates v. Marsh,
33 Vt. 122; Johnson v. Tilden, 5 Vt. 426.
Virginia. — Newman v. Newman, 27 Gratt.
714.
Wisconsin. — Higgins v. Eiddell, 12 Wis.
587.
United States. — Bohlen v. Arthurs, 115
U. S. 482, 6 S. Ct. 114, 29 L. ed. 454, hold-
ing that a tenant in common cutting and re-
moving timber cannot maintain an action of
replevin against such of his cotenants therein
who seize and hold it, because they have
each and equally a right of possession.
England.— Beer v. Beer, 12 C. B. 60, 16
Jur. 223, 21 L. J. C. P. 124, 74 E. C. L. 60;
Goodwyn v. Spray, Dick. 667, 21 Eng. Re-
print 431; Denys f. Shuckburgh, 5 Jur. 21,
4 Y. & C. Exch. 42; Griffies f. Griffies, 8
L. T. Rep. N. S. 758, 11 Wkly. Rep. 943;
Tyson v. Fairclough, 2 Sim. & St. 142, 25
Rev. Rep. 175, 1 Eng. Ch. 142, 57 Eng. Re-
print 300; Hole v. Thomas, 7 Ves. Jr. 580,
6 Rev. Rep. 195, 32 Eng. Reprint 237.
Canada. — Freeman v. Morton, 3 Nova
Scotia 340; Baker v. Casey, 17 Grant Ch.
(U. C.) 195.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," I 62 et seq.
In a water right, the right to a unity of
possession must extend to the right of user.
[HI, B, 2]
18 [38 Cye.J
TENANCY IN COMMON
that he is bound to so exercise his rights in the property as not to interfere with
the rights of his cotenant.'" It follows that a tenant in common of land has no
right to use force and violence to exclude his cotenant from entry on the common
and a tenant in common may change the
point of diversion of water or his place of use
of the water, if he does not infringe the
rights of his cotenants. Telluride i". Davis,
33 Colo. 355, 80 Pac. 1051, 108 Am. St. Eep.
101.
Timber. — In the absence of conduct on his
part amounting to an ouster or waste an
occupying cotenant is not chargeable with
the value of timber cut by him from the com-
mon property during his occupation. Nevels
V. Kentucky Lumber Co., 108 Ky. 550, 56
S. W. 96&, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 247, 94 Am. St.
Rep. 388, 49' L. R. A. 416; Strong f. Richard-
son, 19 Vt. 194; Munsie v. Lindsay, 10 Ont.
Pr. 173; Rice v. George, 20 Grant Ch. (U. C.)
221 ; Griffin v. Patterson, 45 U. C. Q. B. 536,
591. But see Gillum f. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.,
5 Tex. Civ. App. 338, 23 S. W. 717. So where
a life-owner of common land cuts and uses a
few hundred dollars' worth of timber for the
use of a sawmill owned by the tenants in
common, but leaving an abundance of tim-
ber for all purposes. Dodd v. Watson, 57
N. C. 48, 72 Am. Dec. 577. See also Adam-
son r. Adamson, 17 Ont. 407. A tenant in
common may sell marketable timber growing
on the common land if such action does not
amount to waste. The proper remedy of his
cotenants may be to compel an accounting.
Hodges V. Heal, 80 Me. 281, 14 Atl. 11, 6
Am. St. Rep. 199; Kimball v. Sumner, 62
Me. 305; Bradley f. Boynton, 22 Me. 287,
39 Am. Dec. 582; Mee v. Benedict, 98 Mich.
260, 57 N. W. 175, 39 Am. St. Rep. 543, 22
L. R. A. 641; Gillum v. St. Louis, etc., R.
Co., 4 Tex. Civ. App. 622, 23 S. W. 716.
Demand for possession not notice to quit.
— A demand by a tenant in common upon
his cotenant to be let into possession is not
a notice to quit in the absence of statute to
the contrary. Carpentier f. Webster, 27 Cal.
524.
Personal property. — The general rule is
that each cotenant is equally entitled to
possession of personal property, and that one
in actual possession thereof had a right to
maintain such possession against his coten-
ants, unless otherwise provided by statute.
Blewett t". Coleman, 40 Pa. St. 45 (holding
that a tenant in common has no right to
seize ores mined by the lessee of his coten-
ant) ; Earll t. Stumpf, 56 Wis. 50, 13 N. W.
701. See Penn v. Butler, 19 Fed. Cas. No.
10,930, 4 Dall. 354 (where it was held that
the survivor of joint payees of bonds was,
on the death of one of said payees, entitled
to retain possession thereof as against the
executor of said deceased) ; Baker c. Casey,
17 Grant Ch. (U. 0.) 195 (where an injunc-
tion restraining the proceedings of part-
owners of a schooner in sole possession from
excluding their cotenant therefrom was re-
fused where there was no allegation that
there had been any dispute as to the em-
ployment of the vessel). The only remedy
of the cotenants to acquire possession
[III, B, 2]
is to take possession when a fit op-
portunity presents itself (Southworth v.
Smith, 27 Conn. 355, 71 Am. Dec. 72;
Carter v. Bailey, 64 Me. 548, 18 Am. Rep.
273; Estey v. Boardman, 61 Me. 595. See
Tallman v. Barnes, 54 Wis. 181, 11 N. W.
478; Fennings k. Grenville, 1 Taunt. 241;
Freeman v. Morton, 3 Nova Scotia 340) ; or
by partition (Thompson v. Silverthorne, 142
N. C. 12, 54 S. E. 782, 115 Am. St. Eep. 727;
Powell f. Hill, 64 N. C. 169). The tenants
in common in possession may lawfully con-
trol the property, and may employ another
to care for the property who may be entitled
to a lien thereon dependent on possession,
for pay for his services. Williamson v.
Moore, 10 Ida. 749, 80 Pac. 227.
76. Byara v. Bickford, 140 Mass. 31, 2
N. E. 687 (holding that one tenant in
common may, without becoming liable
in trespass, remove a building erected
by his cotenants without his consent on
the common property, which erection ex-
cludes him from the portion of the common
property on which said building is erected) ;
Adams f. Briggs Iron Co., 7 Cush. (Mass.)
361; Newton v. Newton, 17 Pick. (Mass.)
201 (holding that a cotenant may not
prevent his cotenant from sending a
servant into a common well to clean
it, even though the well does not re-
quire cleaning) ; Country Club Land Assoc.
f. Lohbauer, 187 N. Y. 106, 79 N. E. 844
[affirming 110 N. Y. App. Div. 875, 97 N. Y.
Suppl. 11] ; Beach f. Child, 13 Wend. (N. Y.)
343; Woods v. Early, 95 Va. 307, 28 8. E.
374, holding that a tenant in common in a
building cannot erect a wall along the middle
of a hall, which is the only means of access
to two offices, if the erection interferes with
the rights of his cotenants.
The owner of an undivided interest in a
mining claim has no right to use any part
thereof to the exclusion of his cotenants
therein. Laesch r. Morton, 38 Colo. 171, 87
Pac. 1081; Mills v. Hart, 24 Colo. 505, 52
Pac. 680, 65 Am. St. Rep. 241; Daniel v.
Daniel, 102 Ga. 181, 28 S. E. 167; Williams
!■. Rogers, 110 Mich. 418, 68 N. W. 240;
Butte, etc., Consol. Min. Co. v. Montana Ore
Purchasing Co., (Mont. 1898) 55 Pac. 112;
Morrison v. Morrison, 122 N. C. 598, 29 S. E.
901 ; Sweeney v. Hanley, 126 Fed. 97, 61
C. C. A. 153. And one tenant in common has
no right to seize to his own uses ores mined
by a lessee of his cotenant. Blewett v. Cole-
man, 40 Pa. St. 45. Upon judicial sale of the
undivided portion of a mining claim the sher-
iff cannot legally eject defendants if they sub-
mit to the vendor's common occupancy of
the property. Bullion Min. Co. v. Croesus
Gold, etc., Min. Co., 2 Nev. 168, 90 Am Dee
526.
Water rights. — A tenant in common has
no right, by means of a dam erected on other
lands of which he is sole seized, to flow the
land owned in common without the consent
TENANCY IN COMMON
[88 Cye.J 19
property, even though such entry be with the purpose of doing an act that may
be tortious; " and neither an action at law nor in equity can ordinarily be main-
tained between cotenants for the exclusive possession of the common property
or for the sole enjoyment of the profits thereof, even though the one in possession
refuses to deliver sole possession to his cotenant, or defendant forcibly took it
from plaintiff's possession; if a tenant in common desires to have sole and exclusive
possession of his interest in the common property he can only seek his remedy
in partition." If a tenant in common recovers or holds sole possession because
of some necessary and proper expenditure for the common benefit he may be
entitled to sole possession until after contribution," and it is competent for
tenants in common to agree among themselves that one of them shall have sole
or exclusive possession of the common property, and such an agreement is valid
and enforceable.'" There is no liability on the part of a cotenant to his fellows
of his cotenants and to their injury; nor can
he, by grant of the land of which he is so
sole seized, convey such right of flowage to
his grantee. Hutchinson «. Chase, 39 Me.
508, 63 Am. Dec. 645; Great Falls Co. t.
Worster, 15 N. H. 412; Odiorne v. Lyford, 9
N. H. 502, 32 Am. Dec. 387. He may not,
to the injury of his cotenants therein, divert
the water from an aqueduct or a mill owned
in common (Pillsbury t. Moore, 44 Me.
154, 69 Am. Dec. 91; Blanchard t. Baker, 8
Me. 253, 23 Am. Dec. 504; McLellan v. Jen-
ness, 43 Vt. 183, 5 Am. Eep. 270), nor may
he stop up a ditch owned in common arid
thereby overflow his cotenants' land; even
though the damaged parties fail to repair the
ditch, the duty to repair being equal between
the cotenants (Adams f. Manning, 51 Conn.
5; Moss V. Rose, 27 Oreg. 595, 41 Pac. 666,
50 Am. St. Rep. 743'), nor build a pier which
interferes with his cotenants (Beach v.
Child, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 343). Interference
with the cotenant's right in a salmon fishery
is ground for an action on the case between
them. Duncan v. Sylvester, 24 Me. 482, 41
Am. Dec. 400, holding, however, that tres-
pass quare clauaum was not maintainable be-
tween tenants in common of a fishery where
one of them cut away and set adrift the fish-
ing nets of the other. But a cotenant may
change the place of use of the water or the
point of diversion thereof if it does not dam-
age or infringe the rights of his coSwners
(Telluride v. Davis, 33 Colo. 355, 80 Pac. 1051,
108 Am. St. Rep. 101; Moflfett v. Brewer, 1
Greene ( Iowa ) 348 ); and a tenant in common
in water rights of a ditch has the right, in
the absence of contractual or statutory limi-
tation, to recapture and use his proportion of
the water for any lawful purposes, after the
original uses of the ditch have been aban-
doned, and its flow turned into another stream
(Meagher v. Hardenbrook, 11 Mont. 385, 28
Pac. 451). If tenants in common convey a
mill and water privilege and in said convey-
ance give to the grantee thereunder the right
and privilege to flow any land owned by
■ them, the subsequent grantees of said land
holding under them cannot complain against
such flowage. Howard v. Bates, 8 Meto.
(Mass.) 484.
77. Com. v. Lakeman, 4 Cush. (Mass.)
597; Com. v. Oliver, 2 Pars. Bq. Cas. (Pa.)
420.
78. Alabama. — Smith v. Rice, 56 Ala. 417.
California. — Balch v. Jones, 61 Cal. 234.
Georgia. — Thompson V. Sanders, 113 Ga.
1024, 39 S. E. 419.
Iowa. — Stern v. Selleck, 136 Iowa 291, 111
N. W. 451; Conover v. Earl, 26 Iowa 167.
Kentucky. — Chinn v. Respass, 1 T. B. Mon.
25; Lewis v. Night, 3 Litt. 223; Carlyle v.
Patterson, 3 Bibb 93.
Mairae.— Carter v. Bailey, 64 Me. 458, 18
Am. Eep. 273; Witham v. Witham, 57 Me.
447, 99 Am. Dec. 787.
Michigan. — McElroy v. O'Callaghan, 112
Mich. 124, 70 N. W. 441.
Minnesota. — Person f. Wilson, 25 Minn.
189.
Missouri. — Miller «. Crigler, 83 Mo. App.
395 ; Kelley v. Vandiver, 75 Mo. App. 435 ;
Sharp V. Benoist, 7 Mo. App. 534.
Montana. — Harrigan v. Lynch, 21 Mont.
36, 52 Pac. 642 ; Sharp v. Benoist, 7 Mo. App.
534.
'New Hampshire. — Pickering v. Moore, 67
N. H. 533, 32 Atl. 828, 68 Am. St. Rep. 695,
31 L. R. A. 698.
New York. — Osborn v. Schenck, 83 N. Y.
201 ; Rodermund v. Clark, 46 N. Y. 354 ; Fos-
gate V. Herkimer Mfg., etc., Co., 12 Barb. 352
Xafjlrming 9 Barb. 287, and affirmed in 12
N. Y. 580]; Beecher v. Bennett, 11 Barb.
374; Tyler v. Taylor, 8 Barb. 585; Farr r.
Smith, 9 Wend. 338, 24 Am. Dec. 162; St.
John V. Standring, 2 Johns. 468.
North Carolina. — Thompson v. Silverthorne,
142 K. C. 12, 54 S. E. 782, 115 Am. St. Rep.
727; Powell v. Hill, 64 N. C. 169; Cain v.
Wright, 50 N. C. 282, 72 Am. Dec. 551; Bon-
ner i;. Latham, 23 N. C. 271.
Pennsylvania. — Heller V. Hufsmith, 102
Pa. St. 533.
Texas. — Davidson v. Wallingford, 88 Tex.
619, 32 S. W. 1030.
Vermont. — Deavitt v. Ring, 73 Vt. 298, 50
Atl. 1066; Booth v. Adams, 11 Vt. 156, 34
Am. Dec. 680; Tubbs v. Richardson, 6 Vt.
442, 27 Am. Dec. 570.
Compare Cole v. Broom, Dudley (S. C.) 7.
79. Blodgett v. Hildreth, 8 Allen (Mass.)
186; Gregg v. Patterson, 9 Watts & S. (Pa.)
197. But see Young v. Gammel, 4 Greene
(Iowa) 20T, holding otherwise where the non-
contributing cotenant was an infant.
80. Hudson v. Swan, 7 Abb. N". Cas.
(N. Y.) 324 [reversed on other grounds in 83
[III, B, 2]
20 [38 CycJ
TENANCY IN COMMON
for natural wear and tear resulting from lapse of time and proper use of the common
property; there is liability only for damages in tort arising from negligence, mis-
use, or abuse thereof; '' in case of loss of the common property following a wrongful
detention thereof by one of the tenants in common therein, but without negligence
or other wrong-doing on the part of the tenant in common so wrongfully detaining
the common property, his cotenant therein is entitled to some, if no more than
nominal damages, but not to the extent of the full value of his share. '^ Statutes
are liberally construed to further the rights of cotenants in the enjoyment of the
common property.*^
C. Possession and Seizin — 1. Right to Possession. A tenant in common
has an interest in the possession of every part of the property,^* and from the
nature of the estate must necessarily be in possession of the whole,^^ and a tenant
N. Y. 552] (where the owners of a trotting
horse agreed that one of their number should
retain possession of such horse for the pur-
pose of training and driving it, and that he
should have a lien thereon for his expenses) ;
Corbett f. Lewis, 53 Pa. St. 322 (where com-
mon owners of personal property agreed that
if some of them would furnish supplies for
manufacture they should have exclusive sale
of the manufactured article) ; Longwell f.
Bentley, 3 Grant (Pa.) 177.
Such a permissive holding is not adverse.
Rhea v. Craig, 141 N. C. 602, 54 S. E. 408. And
see in/ro, III, C, 3, b. This rule applies to re-
alty as well as to personalty, and the relation
of the one holding possession under the agree-
ment toward his cotenants is the same as that
of any stranger to them thus holding except
as it may, in rare eases, be modified by the re-
lationship of cotenancy. Harry v. Harry,
127 Ind. 91, 26 N. E. 562; Calvert f. Pewee
Valley, 25 S. W. 5, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 644;
O'Connor f. Delaney, 53 Minn. 247, 54 N. W.
1108, 39 Am. St. Rep. 601; Early f. Friend,
16 Gratt. (Va.) 21, 78 Am. Dec. 649. The
cotenant cannot while holding possession un-
der contract from the others litigate his right
of possession by virtue of the cotenancy as
contradistinguished from his right of posses-
sion under the contract. Hershey v. Clark,
27 Ark. 527.
81. Trammell v. McDade, 29 Tex. 360;
Bodkin f. Arnold, 48 W. Va. 108, 35 S. E.
880. See also Hall v. Fisher, 20 Barb.
(N. y.) 441.
82. Clow V. Plummer, 85 Mich. 550, 48
N. W. 795 ; Shearin v. Riggsby, 97 N. C. 216,
1 S. E. 770.
83. California. — Wagoner v. Silva, 139 Cal.
559, 73 Pac. 433; Smith v. Stearns Rancho
Co., 129 Cal. 58, 61 Pac. 662; Carpentier v.
Mitchell, 29 Cal. 330.
Massachusetts. — Hastings v. Hastings, 110
Mass. 280.
Montana. — Butte, etc., Conaol. Min. Co. v.
Montana Ore Purchasing Co., 25 Mont. 41,
63 Pac. 825.
South Carolina. — Bannister v. Bull, 16
S. C. 220.
South Dakota. — Mather v. Dunn, 11 S. D.
196, 76 N. W. 922, 74 Am. St. Rep. 786.
Virginia. — Allen f. Gibson, 4 Rand. 468.
84. California. — Hart c. Robertson, 21 Cal.
346; Touchard v. Crow, 20 Cal. 150, 81 Am.
Dec. 108; Covillaud v. Tanner, 7 Cal. 38.
[Ill, B, 2]
Connecticut. — Robinson v. Roberts, 31
Conn. 145; Smith v. Starkweather, 5 Day
207; Bush v. Bradley, 4 Day 298; Hillhouse
V. Mix, 1 Root 246, 1 Am. Dec. 41.
Georgia. — Greenfield r. Mclntyre, 112 Ga.
691, 38 S. E. 44; Sanford v. Sanford, 58 Ga.
259.
Indiana. — Chesround v. Cunningham, 3
Blackf. 82.
Kentucky. — Craig e. Taylor, 6 B. Mon.
457; King v. Bullock, 9 Dana 41.
Massachusetts. — Butrick v. Tilton, 141
Mass. 93, 6 N. E. 563.
Minnesota. — Sherin v. Larson, 28 Minn.
623, 11 N. W. 70.
Nevada. — Brown v. Warren, 16 Nev. 228.
New Mexico. — De Bergere v. Chaves, (1908)
93 Pac. 762.
North Carolina. — ^Yancey v. Greenlee, 90
N. C. 317.
North Dakota. — Griswold v. Minneapolis,
etc., R. Co., 12 N. D. 435., 97 N. W. 538, 102
Am. St. Rep. 572.
South Carolina. — Bannister v. Bull, 16
S. C. 220.
Tennessee. — Jones v. Phillips, 10 Heisk.
562; Hammett v. Blount, 1 Swan 385; Tur-
ner V. Lumbrick, Meigs 7.
Vermont. — Johnson v. Tilden, 5 Vt. 426-
Wiswell V. Wilkins, 4 Vt. 137.
Virginia. — Allen v. Gibson, 4 R^nd. 468.
United States. — Hardy v. Johnson, 1 Wall
371, 17 L. ed. 502; Whittle l\ Bookwalter, 55
Fed. 919 ; French v. Edwards, 9 Fed. Cas. No.
5,098, 5 Sawy. 266, 7 Reporter 68; LeFrano
V. Richmond, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,209, 5 Sawv
601. 'J
The dispossession of a tenant in common
by a cotenant, by force or fraud, cannot aflFect
the dispossessed party's rights as between the
cotenants in the premises. Fisher v Sey-
mour, 23 Colo. 542, 49 Pac. 30; Brown v
Hogle, 30 111. 11&; Warren v. Henshaw, 2 Aik'
(Vt.) 141. But the defrauded cotenant is
said to have no remedy excepting in equity
Weakly f. Hall, 13 Ohio 167, 42 Am. Dec.
194.
Each cotenant may have his several action
of trespass quare against a stranger. Long-
fellow V. Quimby, 29 Me. 196, 48 Am. Deo.
525.
85. California.— Ord v. Chester, 18 Oal 77
Kentucky.— GosBom v. Donaldson, 18 b"
Mon. 230, 68 Am. Dec. 723.
Maine. — Knox v. Silloway, 10 Me. 201.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 CycJ 21
in common is entitled to possession of the common property as against all the
world save his cotenants; '° and no one can complain of the exclusive use of the
common property by one tenant in common except his cotenant."
2. Possession of One as Possession of All. The ertry and possession of one
tenant in common is presumed to be for the benefit of all; and wUl, in the absence
oi statute to the contrary, be regarded as the possession of all the cotenants, until
rendered adverse by some act or declaration by him repudiating their interest
in the property,** and statutes that might be construed against such presumption
2V©ip York. — Country Club Land Assoc. ii.
Lohbauer, 187 N. Y. 106, 79 N. E. 844
[affirming 110 N. Y. App. Div. 875, 97 N. Y.
Suppl. 11].
Rhode Island. — Almy v. Daniels, 15 R. I.
312, 4 Atl. 753, 10 Atl. 654.
A cotenant cannot be ejected for occupying
more than what would be his share of the
premises on partition. Daniel v. Daniel, 102
Ga. 181, 28 S. B. 167.
86. Alabama. — Moore v. Walker, 124 Ala.
199, 26 So. 984; Smith v. Rice, 56 Ala.
417.
Arkansas. — Burgett V. Williford, 56 Ark.
187, 19 S. W. 750, 35 Am. St. Rep. 96.
California. — Wittenbreck v. Wheadon, 128
Gal. 150, 60 Pac. 664, 79 Am. St. Rep. 32;
Williams v. Sutton, 43 Cal. 65; Hart v. Rob-
ertson, 21 Cal. 346; Stark v. Barrett, 15 Cal.
361; Lick V. O'Donnell, 3 Cal. 5«', 58 Am.
Dec. 383.
Colorado. — Weese v. Barker, 7 Colo. 178, 2
Pac. 919.
Iowa. — Howe v. Howe, 90 Iowa 582, 58
N. W. 908.
Kentucky. — Chinn v. Respass, 1 T. B. Mon.
25; Lewis V. Night, 3 Litt. 223; Carlyle v.
Patterson, 3 Bibb 93.
Louisiana. — Moreira v. Schwan, 113 La.
643, 37 So. 542.
Massachusetts. — King v. Dickerman, 77
Mass. 480; Rawson v. Morse, 4 Pick. 127.
Minnesota. — Strong f. Colter, 13 Minn. 82.
Nevada. — Hoopes v. Meyer, 1 Nev. 433.
New York. — Moore v. Goedel, 34 N. Y.
527 [affirming 7 Bosw. 591] ; Erwin V. Olm-
sted, 7 Cow. 229.
North Carolina. — Cain v. Wright, 50 N. C.
282, 72 Am. Dec. 551; Bonner v. Latham, 23
N. C. 271.
Pennsylvania. — Orbin v. Stevens, 13 Pa.
Super. Ct. 591.
South Carolina. — Martin v. Quattlebam, 3
McCord 205.
Texas. — McGrady v. McRae, 1 Tex. App.
Civ. Cas. § 1036.
Wisconsin. — Earll v. Stumpf, 56 Wis. 50,
13 N. W. 701.
As against trespasser. — One of several
tenants in common of land is entitled to pos-
session of the whole tract as against a mere
trespasser. Winborne v. Elizabeth City Lum-
ber Co., 130 N. C. 32, 40 S. E. 825; Thames
V. Jones, 97 N. C. 121, 1 S. E. 692 ; Lafoon v.
Shearin, 95 N". C. 391 ; Yancey v. Greenlee, 90
N. C. 317; Green v. Graham, 5 Ohio 264;
Mather 1}. Dunn, 11 S. D. 196, 76 N. W. 922,
74 Am. St. Rep. 788; Wright v. Dunn, 73
Tex. 293, 11 S. W. 330; Thompson v. Johnson,
(Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 56 S. W. 591.
Where one cotenant maintains an action
for possession against a trespasser, the re-
covery inures to the benefit of all the coten-
ants. Newman v. State Bank, 80 Cal. 368,
22 Pac. 261, 13 Am. St. Rep. 169, 5 L. R. A.
467; Keith v. Keith, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 363,
87 S. W. 384.
87. Heilbron v. St. Louis Southwestern R.
Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1908) 113 S. W. 610.
88. Alabama. — liong v. Grant, 163 Ala.
507, 50 So. 914; Sumner v. Hill, 157 Ala. 230,
47 So. 565; Inglis v. Webb, 117 Ala. 387, 23
So. 125; Williams v. Avery, 38 Ala. 115. But
see Brown v. Floyd, 163 Ala. 317, 50 So. 995,
holding that the fact that possession of one
tenant in common is the possession of all is
not a defense for trespass by one tenant in
common against the possession and person
of another, holding the actual possession and
claiming the entire property.
California. — McNeil v. San Francisco First
Cong. Soc, 66 Cal. 105, 4 Pac. 1096; Aguirre
V. Alexander, 58 Cal. 217; McCauley v. Har-
vey, 49 Cal. 497; Varni v. Devoto, 10 Cal.
App. 304, 101 Pac. 934.
Georgia. — Thompson v. Sanders, 113 Ga.
1024, 39 S. E. 419.
Illinois. — Blackaby v. Blackaby, 185 111.
94, 56 N. E. 1053; Ball v. Palmer, 81 111.
370 (holding that a coheir residing with the
ancestor at the time of his death is pre-
sumed to hold for the benefit of the other
coheirs) ; Swartwout v. Evans, 37 111. 442 ;
Brown v. Graham, 24 111. 628 (holding that
therefore where one tenant in common is in
possession of indivisible personal property,
and his cotenant out of possession sells his
interest, the possession of the one in posses-
sion Tbecomes that of the purchaser).
Indiana. — Elliott v. Frakes, 90 Ind. 389;
Patterson v. Nixon, 79 Ind. 251 ; Nicholson
t". Caress, 76 Ind. 24; Manchester f. Dod-
dridge, 3 Ind. 360.
Iowa. — Weare v. Van Meter, 42 Iowa 128,
20 Am. Rep. 616.
Kansas. — Schoonover v. Tyner, 72 Kan.
475, 84 Pac. 124.
Kentucky. — Vermillion v. Nickell, (1908)
114 S. W. 270; Bloom v. Sawyer, 12V Ky.
308, 89 S. W. 204, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 349 ; Gill
V. Fauntleroy, 8 B. Mon. 177; Taylor c.
Cox, 2 B. Mon. 429; Poage f. Chinn, 4 Dana
50.
Maine. — Thornton v. York Bank, 45 Me.
158; Bird v. Bird, 40 Me. 398. Compare
Gilman v. Stetson, 18 Me. 428.
Massachusetts. — Whiting v. Dewey, 15
Pick. 428; Shumway v. Holbrook, 1 Pick.
114, 11 Am. Dec. 153; Brown v. Wood, 17
Mass. 68; Barnard v. Pope, 14 Mass. 434, 7
[III, C, 2]
22 [38 Cye.j
TENANCY IN COMMON
have been held to have no operation as between tenants in common; *' and so
Am. Dec. 225. But see Oummings v. Wymaji,
10 Mass. 464.
Michigan. — Nowlen v. Hall, 128 Mich. 274,
87 N. W. 222.
Minnesota. — Lindley v. Groff, 37 Minn.
338, 34 N. W. 26; Strong v. Colter, 13 Minn.
82.
Mississippi. — Her v. Kouth, 3 How. 276.
Missouri. — Chapman v. Kulbnan, 191 Mo.
237, 89 S. W. 924; Coberly v. Coberly, 189
Mo. 1, 87 S. W. 957; Stevens v. Martin, 168
Mo. 407, 68 S. W. 347 ; Whitaker v. Whitaker,
157 Mo. 342, 58 S. W. 5; Benoist v. Roths-
child, 145 Mo. 399, 46 S. W. 1081; Hutson
V. Hutson, 139 Mo. 229, 40 S. W. 886; Colvin
V. Hauenstein, 110 Mo. 575, 19 S. W. 948;
Bernecker v. Miller, 40 Mo. 473, 93 Am. Dec.
309 (holding that if any of a number of co-
tenants, less than the whole, be turned out
of possession, and the other thereof still re-
main in possession, such possession continues
for the benefit of all of said cotenants) ;
Eozier v. Griffith, 31 Mo. 171.
Montana. — Southmayd v. Southmayd, 4
Mont. 100, 5 Pac. 318.
Neio Hampshire. — Blake v. Milliken, 14
N. H. 213.
New York. — Allen v. Arkenburgh, 2 N. Y.
App. Div. 452, 37 N. Y. Suppl. 1032; Beal v.
Miller, 3 Thomps. & C. 564; Constantine v.
Van Winkle, 6 Hill 177.
North Carolina. — Mott r. Carolina Land,
etc., Co., 146 N. C. 525, 60 S. E. 423; Dob-
bins V. Dobbins, 141 N. C. 210, 53 S. E. 870,
115 Am. St. Eep. 682; Hardee v. Weathing-
ton, 130 N. C. 91, 40 S. E. 855; Conkey v.
John L. Roper Lumber Co., 126 N. C. 499,
36 S. E. 42; Tharpe v. Holcomb, 126 N. C.
365, 35 S. E. 608; Covington v. Stewart, 77
N. C. 148; Linker r. Benson, 67 N. C. 150;
Saunders v. Gatlin, 21 N. C. 86; Cloud v.
Well, 15 N. C. 290, 25 Am. Dec. 711.
Ohio. — Hogg V. Beerman, 41 Ohio St. 81,
52 Am. Rep. 71.
Oregon. — Moss v. Rose, 27 Oreg. 595, 41
Pac. 666, 50 Am. St. Rep. 743.
Pennsylvamia. — Stull v. StuU, 197 Pa. St.
243, 47 Atl. 240; Hart v. Gregg, 10 Watts
185, 36 Am. Dec. 166 (holding that where
possession by one coheir continued for
twenty-one years, such possession would not
bar the other heirs in the absence of an ad-
verse holding) ; Beam v. Gardner, 18 Pa.
Super. Ct. 245.
Philippine. — Wolfson v. Reyes, 8 Philip-
pine 364.
Porto Rico. — Ortiz de Rodriguez v. Vivoni,
1 Porto Rico Fed. 487 ; Soriano v. Arrese, 1
Porto Rico Fed. 198.
South Carolina. — Richardson v. Day, 20
S. C. 412; Cole v. Broom, Dudley 7; Villard
r. Robert, 1 Strobh. Eq. 393 ; Gray v. Givens,
Riley Eq. 41, 2 Hill Eq. 511.
Tennessee. — Marr v. Gilliam, 1 Coldw. 488;
Elliott V. Holder, 3 Head 6'98; Cunningham
V. Roberson, 1 Swan 138.
rexos.— Myers v. Frey, 102 Tex. 527, 119
S. W. 1142 [affirming (Civ. App. 1908) 113
S. W. 592] ; Terrell v. Martin, 64 Tex. 121 ;
[III. C, 2]
Alexander i;. Kennedy, 19 Tex. 488, 70 Am.
Dec. 358; Franks v. Hancock, 1 Tex. Unrep.
Cas. 554; Garcia v. lUg, 14 Tex. Civ. App.
482, 37 S. W. 471; Noble v. Hill, 8 Tax.
Civ. App. 171, 27 S. W. 756.
Vermont. — Avery v. Hall, 50 Vt. 11; Howe
Scale Co. v. Terry, 47 Vt. 109; Buckmaster
V. N«edham, 22 Vt. 617; Johnson v. Tilden,
5 Vt. 426.
Washington. — Cedar Canyon Consol. Min.
Co. V. Yarwood, 27 Wash. 271, 67 Pac. 749;
91 Am. St. Rep. 841.
West Virginia. — Parker v. Brast, 45
W. Va. 399, 32 S. E. 269.
United States. — Clymer v. Dawkins, 3
How. 674, 11 L. ed. 778; Baker v. Whiting,
2 Fed. Cas. No. 787, 3 Sumn. 475.
England. — Ex p. Machell, 1 Rose 447, 2
Vcs. & B. 216, 35 Eng. Reprint 301.
Canada. — Handley v. Archibald, 30 Can.
Sup. Ct. 130; Harris v. Mudie, 7 Ont. App.
414, 30 U. C. C. P. 484; Dumble f. Larush,
25 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 552, 27 Grant Ch.
(U. C ) 187. Compare Hartley v. Maycock,
28 Ont. 508.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 29.
Mineral lands. — Moragne v. Doe, 143 Ala.
45'9, 39 So. 161, 111 Am. St. Rep. 52; South-
mayd i: Southmayd, 4 Mont. 100, 5 Pac. 318.
Even though a tenant in common in pos-
session takes all the profits without sharing
with his cotenants, the presumption in the
text applies. Thornton v. York Bank, 45
Me. 158.
The possession of the husband of a coten-
ant, recognizing the cotenancy, is the posses-
sion of all. Mott V. Carolina Land, etc., Co.,
146 N. C. 525, 60 S. E. 423. And the entry
of a husband on the common property in the
right of his wife inures to the benefit of her
cotenants. Young r. Adams, 14 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 127, 58 Am. Dec. 654. But a married
woman living with her husband on the prem-
ises is not estopped as a tenant in common
from setting up adverse title in him. Cooper
V. Fox, 67 Miss. 237, 7 So. 342.
A grantee of the interests or a part of the
interests of one cotenant is presumed to hold
under the terms of such grant. Moragne v.
Doe, 143 Ala. 459, 39' So. 161, 111 Am. St.
Rep. 52; Joyce v. Dyer, 189 Mass. 64, 75
N. E. 81, 10» Am. St. Rep. 603; Elder v.
McClaskey, 70 Fed. 529-, 17 C. C. A. 251 [re-
versing 47 Fed. 154]. Thus a licensee of a
cotenant or the purchaser of an undivided
interest is pj-esumed to hold his possession
in recognition of the cotenancy, although
such presumption is rebuttable. Bucknam v.
Bucknam, 30 Me. 494; Cook r. Clinton, 64
Mich. 309, 31 N. W. 317, 8 Am. St. Rep. 816;
Alsobrook v. Eggleston, 69 Miss. 833, 13 So.
850.
The possession of one coparcener, eo
nomine, as coparcener, is the possession of
the others. Manchester v. Doddridge, 3 Ind.
360 ; Robertson v. Robertson, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.)
235, 38 Am. Dec. 148.
89. Gregg r. Roaring Springs Land, etc..
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 CycJ 23
strong is the presumption that ordinarily if a tenant in common is in possession
in a dual character, his right to possession will be attributed to the cotenancy
in preference to his other capacity."" Thus property having descended to heirs,
it is presumed that the possession and management thereof by one is for the
benefit of all; and such possession will not be deemed to be adverse to, but in
consonance with the rights of, the other heirs and wUl inure to their benefit, °^
and so as to distributees; °^ and the entry of one cotenant claiming by virtue of a
common estate is sufficient to give his cotenants seizin according to their respective
titles, unless there is a visible adverse seizin of some part of the land that has
ripened into a title. °^ The rule has no application where persons are apparently
but not actually tenants in common. ''*
3. Ouster and Adverse Possession — a. Rule Stated. Tenants in common
may oust each other of the possession of land, and statutes of limitations will
run against the claims of and under the ousted cotenants from the time of such
ouster,"^ and acts of disseizin by one tenant in common of his cotenants, with
notice thereof to the disseizees, evidence an adverse holding and the statute of
Co., 97 Mo. App. 44, 70 S. W. 920; Metz v.
Metz, 48 S. C. 472, 26 S. E. 787.
90. Mellon «. Reed, 114 Pa. St. 647, 8 Atl.
227. Compare Valentine i: Healey, 158 N. Y.
369, 52 N. E. 1097, 43 L. E. A. 667.
The possession of the ownet of a mortgage,
who is at the same time the owner of an
undivided interest in the mortgaged premises,
will be presumed to be by virtue of his co-
tenancy and not that of his mortgage, unless
it was acquired by virtue of said mortgage
and so retained. Mellon v. Reed, 114 Pa. St.
647, 8 Atl. 227.
Holding over under lease. — The relation-
ship of landlord and tenant is not readily
inferable between tenants in common. Boley
V. Barutio, 24 111. App. 515. If, however, a
tenant in common lease the undivided in-
terest of his cotenants in the common prop-
erty and after the expiration of such lease
expressly or impliedly admits that he is con-
tinuing to hold under such lease or does some
act from which such a fact might be fairly
inferred, his possession will be presumed to
be under his lease, as that of any other ten-
ant holding over in the absence of sufficient
rebutting evidence. O'Connor v. Delaney, 53'
Minn. 247, 54 N. W. 1108, 39 Am. St. Rep.
601; Carson v. Broady, 56 Nebr. 648, 77
N. W. 80, 71 Am. St. Rep. 691; Early v.
Friend, 16 Gratt. (Va.) 21, 78 Am. Dec. 649;
Rockwell V. Luck, 32 Wis. 70.
91. Her V. Routh, 3 How. (Miss.) 276;
StuU V. StuU, 197 Pa. St. 243, 47 Atl.
240.
Title before death of ancestor. — If a part
of the supposed heirs of a presumptively dead
owner of land claim as against their sup-
posed coheirs therein under a tax deed pro-
cured before the presumption of death arose,
the rule is otherwise. Webster V: Webster,
55 111. 325.
92. Elliott V. Holder, 3 Head (Tenn.) 698.
93. Brown v. Wood, 17 Mass. 68; Thomas
V. Hatch, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,899, 3 Sumn.
170.
94. Oilman v. Stetson, 18 Me. 428. See
also Webster v. Webster, 55 111. 325.
95. California. — Casserly v. Alameda
County, 153 Cal. 170, 94 Pac. 765.
District of Columiia. — Morris f. Wheat,
11 App. Cas. 201.
Hawaii. — Nakuaimanu v. Halstead, 4
Hawaii 42.
Illinois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Tice, 232
111. 232, 83 N". E. 818.
Indiana. — D-umont v. Dufore, 27 Ind. 263.
Kansas.— See Rand v. Huff, (App. 1897)
51 Pac. 577 [affirmed in (18'9'8) 53 Pac. 483].
Kentucky. — Larman v. Huey, 13 B. Mon.
436.
Maine. — Richardson f. Richardson, 72 Me.
403.
Massachusetts. — Parker v. Proprietors
Merrimack River Locks, etc., 3 Mete. 91, 37
Am. Dee. 121.
Michigan. — Campau f. Dubois, 39 Mich.
274.
Mississippi. — Her v. Routh, 3 How. 276.
Missouri. — Hoffstetter f. Blattner, 8 Mo.
276.
New York. — Tarplee v. Sonn, 109 N. Y.
App. Div. 241, 96 N. Y. Suppl. 6; Jackson
V. Brink, 5 Cow. 483.
North Carolina. — Woodlief v. Woodlief, 136
N. C. 133, 48 S. E. 583.
Oregon. — Northrop v. Marquam, 16 Oreg.
173, 18 Pac. 44fl.
Texas. — Peeler v. Guilkey, 27 Tex. 355.
United States. — Rickard v. Williams, 7
Wheat. 59', 5 L. ed. 398; Dexter v. Arnold,
7 Fed. Cas. No. 3',86'9, 2 Sumn. 162.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 30 et seq.
The North Carolina rule is that a presump-
tion of adverse holding arises after twenty
years' continuous sole possession. The seven
years' limitations prescribed in the North
Carolina code. Civ. Proc. § 141, as to acts
of adverse possession under color of title, is
not applicable to the possession and claim
of adverse holding between cotenants. Jeter
V. Davis, 109 N. 0. 458, 13 S. E. 908; Hamp-
ton V. Wheeler, 99 N. C. 222, 6 S. E. 236;
Breden v. McLaurin, 98 N. 0. 307, 4 S. E.
136; Page v. Branch, S7 N. C. 97, 1 S. E.
625, 2 Am. St. Rep. 281; Hicks v. Bullock,
96 N. C. 164, 1 S. E. 629.
Analogy to landlord and tenant. — There is
a strong analogy between the relations be-
[III, C, 3. a]
M [38 Cyc]
TENANCY IN COMMON
limitations begins to run at the time of such disseizin and notice/" unless there
be statutes to the contrary." But a tenant in common will not be presumed to
tween landlords and tenants and those of
tenants in common, and therefore if one in
possession ousts the other or denies his ten-
ure such act makes the possession adverse.
Grant v. Paddock, 30 Oreg. 312, 47 Pac. 712;
Willison v. Watkins, 3i Pet. (U. S.) 43^ 7
L. ed. 596.
Estoppel from claiming benefit as coten-
ant. — Where one of two tenants in common
claims exclusive right to a moiety of the land
and his possession thereof continues until
after the statute of limitations applies, he is
estopped from claiming his interest as ten-
ant in common in the residue. Gregg f.
Blackmore, 10 Watts (Pa.) 192.
Common title including uninclosed lands. —
Where title by adverse possession is estab-
lished by one tenant in common against his
cotenant the deed, will, patent, or other in-
strument under which both claimed originally
operates in favor of the claimant by adverse
possession as color of title, so as to extend
his possession to uninclosed lands. Broom
V. Pearson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 81 S. W.
753; Russell v. Tennant, 63 W. Va. 623, 60
S. E. 609, 129 Am. St. Rep. 1024.
Purchase at tax-sale. — Limitations will
not run in favor of a purchasing cotenant of
a tax title until after a refusal of contribu-
tion by his cotenant. Phillips f. Wilmarth,
98 Iowa 32, 66 N. W. 1053. And a cotenant
purchasing his cotenant's interest at an
irregular and invalid tax-sale, which vests
him with a lien only upon the property, re-
ceiving sufiBcient rent to reimburse himself
before the expiration of a time in which
his lien might ripen into a title, must apply
the rents for such reimbursement and may
not permit the statute of limitations to run
in his favor. Davis v. Chapman, 24 Fed.
674.
Attornment of tenants of land to one co-
Bwner will nOt start the statute of limita-
tions running in his favor as against the
other coowner thereof unless such attorn-
ment is made with the latter's consent. Sco-
fleld 1-. Douglass, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 30
S. W. 817.
The burden of proof is on him claiming
title to the common property, because the
other cotenants have the benefit of the pre-
sumptions in their favor. Parker v. Brast,
45 W. Va. 399, 32 S. E. 269. The one having
burden of proof must show an actual ouster
or a presumption thereof or a non-recogni-
tion of the rights of the other cotenants by
the one in possession. Mott t". Carolina
Land, etc., Co., 146 N. C. 525., 60 S. E. 423.
96. Alabama. — Inglis r. Webb, 117 Ala.
387, 23 So. 125; Brady r. Huff, 75 Ala. 80.
Arkansas. — Brewer v. Keeler, 42 Ark. 289.
CoK/omm.— Webb v. Winter, (1901) 65
Pac. 1028.
Georgia. — Cain v. Furlow, 47 Ga. 674.
/mnois.— Steele c. Steele, 220 111. 318, 77
N. E. 232; Bovd r. Boyd, 176 111. 40, 51
N. E. 782, 68 Am. St. Rep. 169; Littlejohn
[III, C, 3, a]
V. Barnes, 138 111. 478, 28 N. E. 980; Burgett
V. Taliaferro, 118 111. 603, 9 N. E. 334.
Indiana. — Grubbs v. Leyendecker, 153 Ind.
348, 53 N. E. 940; Wright v. Kleyla, 104 Ind.
223, 4 N. E. 16.
Kentucky. — Bloom v. Sawyer, 121 Ky. 308,
89 S. W. 204, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 349; Rose !;.
Ware, 115 Ky. 420, 74 S. W. 188, 24 Ky. L.
Rep. 2321, 76 S. W. 505, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 947;
GiUaspie v. Osburn, 9 A. K. Marsh. 77, 13
Am. Dec. 136.
Michigan. — Weshgyl v. Schick, 113 Mich.
22, 71 N. W. 323.
Mississippi. — ^Alsobrook v. Eggleston, 69
Miss. 833, 13 So. 850 ; Her v. Routh, 3 How.
276.
Missouri. — Chapman v. KuUman, 191 Mo.
237, 89 S. W. 924; Whitaker v. Whitaker,
157 Mo. 342, 58 S. W. 5.
New Mexico. — Armijo v. Neher, 11 N. M.
645, 72 Pac. 12.
North Carolina. — St. Peter's Church V.
Bragaw, 144 N. C. 126, 56 S. E. 688, 10
L. R. A. N. S. 633.
Ohio. — Payne v. Cooksey, 8 Ohio S. & C.
PI. Dec. 407, 7 Ohio N. P. 90.
Pennsylvania. — Rider r. Maul, 46 Pa. St.
376.
Texas. — Mayes v. Manning, 73 Tex. 43, 11
S. W. 136; Golson r. Fielder, 2 Tex. Civ.
App. 400^ 21 S. W. 173.
Vermont. — Roberts r. Morgan, 30 Vt. 319;
Buckmaster r. Needham, 22 Vt. 617.
West Virginia. — Parker v. Brast, 45 W. Va.
399, 32 S. E. 269.
Wisconsin. — Saladin v. Kraayvanger, 96
Wis. 180, 70 N. W. 1113; Stewart v. Stewart,
83 Wis. 364, 53 N. W. 686, 35 Am. St. Rep.
67; Sydnor v. Palmer, 29 Wis. 226.
United States. — Clvmer v. Dawkins, 3 How.
674, 11 L. ed. 778 ;" Willison v. Watkins, 3
Pet. 43, 7 L. ed. 596.
Canada. — Van Velsor r. Hughson, 45 U. 0.
Q. B. 252, 9 Ont. App. 390.
That the husband of a cotenant has per-
formed such acts may be proven. Ashford
V. Ashford, 136 Ala. 631, 34 So. 10, 96 Am.
St. Rep. 82.
A tax deed when coupled with possession
is sufficient color of title to put the statute
of limitations into operation. Craven r.
Craven, 68 Nebr. 459, 94 N. W. 604.
The attachment of the entire land as that
of the tenant in common in possession by his
creditors is such an act of ouster as will
start the running of the statute of limita-
tions. Elsenheimer r. Sieck, 8 Ohio Dec.
(Reprint) 101, 5 Cine. L. Bui. 645.
Adverse possession under a void deed is not
a good defense to an action of ejectment
for an undivided interest in an estate held
in common. Stewart v. Stewart, 83 Wis.
364, 53 N". W. 686, 35 Am. St. Rep. 67. See
also Sparks v. Bodensick, 72 Kan. 5, 82 Pac.
463.
97. Stern v. Selleck, 136 Iowa 291, 111
N. W. 451.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 CycJ 25
have title by virtue of the bar of the statute of limitations in a less period than fixed
by such statutes, after the absence or removal of disabilities."'
b. What Constitutes Ouster or Adverse Possession — (i) In General.
Ouster is not necessarily a physical eviction. It may exist if there be possession
of or imder the adverse claimant, attended with such circumstances as to evidence
a claim of exclusive right and title, and a denial of the rights of the other cotenants,
and if such possession continues uninterruptedly for the statutory period after
the time that knowledge thereof is, in law, chargeable to those out of possession,
it may become indefeasible."' But before a tenant in common can rely on an
98. Conkey v. John L. Eoper Lumber Co.,
126 N. C. 499, 36 S. B. 42; Neely v. Neely,
79 N. C. 478; Gray v. Givens, Riley Eq.
(S. C.) 41, 2 Hill Eq. 511; Smith v. Kincaid,
10 Humphr. (Tenn.) 73; Van Velsor v. Hugh-
son, 45 U. C. Q. B. 252, 9 Ont. App. 390.
If there be disability or no right of entry
on the part of those intended by said act to
have been disseized, at the time of an act
of disseizin, limitations first begin to run
against them after the right of entry has
accrued, or disability is removed. Dobbins
1-. Dobbins, 141 N. C. 210, 53 S. E. 870> 115
Am. St. Rep. 682; Marr v. Gilliam, 1 Coldw.
(Tenn.) 488; Merryman v. Hoover, 107 Va.
485, 59 S. E. 483; McNeely v. South Penn
Oil Co., 58 W. Va. 438, 52 S. E. 480. Com-
pare Mott f. Carolina Land, etc., Co., 146
N. C. 525, 60 S. E. 423. But not where the
claim of ownership is made under an an-
cestor who was not under disability at said
time. Dobbins f. Dobbins, 141 N. C. 210, 53
5. E. 870, 115 Am. St. Rep. 682. An infant
cotenant is not chargeable with notice.
Northrop v. Marquam, 16 Oreg. 173, 18 Pao.
449.
99. Alabama. — Gulf Red Cedar Lumber
Co. V. Crenshaw, 148 Ala. 343, 42 So. 564
Jellerson t. Pettus, 132 Ala. 671, 32 So. 663
Inglis V. Webb, 117 Ala. 387, 23 So. 125
Brady f. Huff, 75 Ala. 80; Abercrombie v.
Baldwin, 15 Ala. 363.
California. — Feliz v. Feliz, 105 Cal. 1, 38
Pac. 521; Alvarado v. Nordholt, 95 Cal. 116,
30 Pac. 211; Winterburn f. Chambers, 91
Cal. 170, 27 Pac. 658; Aguirre v. Alexander,
58 Cal. 21; Colman v. Clements, 23 Cal. 245;
Mills V. Tukey, 22 Cal. 373, 83 Am. Dec. 74.
Connecticut. — ^Wooster v. Hunts Ljrman
Iron Co., 38i Conn. 256 ; Newell v. Woodruff,
30 Conn. 492.
Illinois.— Steele v. Steele, 220 111. 318, 77
N. E. 232; Kotz v. Belz, 178 111. 434, 53
N. E. 367; Ball v. Palmer, 81 111. 370. See
also Dawson v. Edwards, 189 111. 60, 59 N. E.
5130, holding that mere failure to pay the co-
tenants for their interest in the common
property, as agreed, is not STifficient to rebut
evidence of an adverse holding after the ex-
piration of the period of limitations and a
mesne conveyance and a reconveyance to said
debtor.
Indiama. — Grubbs ;•. Leyendecker, 153 Ind.
348, 53 N. E. 940; Elliott t: Frakes, 90 Ind.
389; McCrum v. McCrum, 36 Ind. App. 636,
76 N. E. 415.
Iowa. — Blankenhorn v. Lenox, 123 Iowa 67,
88 N. W. 556; Murray v. Quigley, 119 Iowa
6, 92 N. W. 869, «7 Am. St. Rep. 276 ; Casey
V. Casey, 107 Iowa 192, 77 N. W. 844, 70
Am. St. Rep. 190; Van Ormer v. Harley, 102
Iowa 150, 71 N. W. 241; Sorenson v. Davis,
83 Iowa 405, 49 N. W. 1004; Knowles v.
Brown, 69 Iowa 11, 28 N. W. 409; Laraway
V. Larue, 63 Iowa 407, 19 N. W. 242; Burns
V. Byrne, 45 Iowa 286; Conover v. Earl, 26
Iowa 167.
Kansas. — i Squires f. Clark, 17 Kan. 84 ;
Rand v. Huff, (App. 1897) 51 Pac. 577 [af-
firmed in (1898) 53 Pac. 483].
Kentucky. — Rose v. Ware, 115 Ky. 420,
74 S. W. 188, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 2321, 76 S. W.
505, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 947; Barret v. Coburn,
3 Mete. 510; Russell v. Mark, 3 Mete. 37;
Taylor v. Cox, 2 B. Mon. 429.
Maine. — Wheeler v. Wheeler, 33 Me. 347;
Colburn v. Mason, 25 Me. 434, 43 Am. Dec.
292.
Maryland. — Van Bibber v. Frazier, 17 Md.
436.
Massachusetts. — Bennett v. Clemence, 6
Allen 10; Lefavour v. Homan, 3 Allen 354;
Bigelow V. Jones, 10 Pick. 161; Cummings v.
Wyman, 10 Mass. 464; Leonard f. Leonard,
10 Mass. 281.
Michigan. — Williams v. Rogers, 110 Mich.
418, 68 N. W. 240.
Minnesota. — Cameron v. Chicago, etc., R.
Co., 60 Minn. 100, 61 N. W. 814, holding that
one tenant in common retaining the exclusive
possession and refusing to purchase and pay
for the interest of his cotenant is an ouster.
Mississippi. — Cooper v. Fox, 67 Miss. 237,
7 So. 342; Her i: Routh, 3 How. 276.
Missouri. — ■ Chapman v. KuUman, 191 Mo.
237, 89 S. W. 924; Whitaker v. Whitaker,
157 Mo. 342, 58 S. W. 5; Hutson v. Hutson,
139 Mo. 229', 40 S. W. 886 ; Childs v. Kansas
City, etc., R. Co., (1891) 17 S. W. 954; Peck
V. Lockridge, 97 Mo. 549, 11 S. W. 246;
Lapeyre v. Paul, 47 Mo. 586; Warfield v.
Lindell, 38 Mo. 561, 90 Am. Dec. 443; Robi-
doux V. Cassilegi, 10 Mo. App. 516.
Montana. — Ayotte v. Nadeau, 32 Mont.
498, 81 Pac. 145; Butte, etc., Consol. Min.
Co. f. Montana Ore-Purchasing Co., (1898)
55 Pac. 12.
Neiraska. — Craven v. Craven, 68 Nebr. 459,
94 N. W. 604; Beall v. McMenemy, 63 Nebr.
70, 88 N. W. 134, 93 Am. St. Rep. 427; Car-
son V. Broady, 56 Nebr. 648, 77 N. W. 80,
71 Am. St. Rep. 691.
New Yorfc.— Wright v. Saddler, 20 N. Y.
320; Merolla v. Lane, 122 N. Y. App. Div. 535,
107 N. Y. Suppl. 439; Tarplee v. Sonn, 109
N. Y. App. Div. 241, 96 N. Y. Suppl. 6; Zapf
V. Carter, 70 N. Y. App. Div. 395, 75 N. Y.'
Suppl. 197 ; Sweetland v. Buell, 89 Hun 543,
[III, C, 3, b, (I)]
26 [38 CycJ
TENANCY IN COMMON
ouster of his cotenants, he must claim the entire title to the land in himself, and
must hold the exclusive and adverse possession against every other person, thus
35 K. Y. Suppl. 346 [affirmed in 164 X. Y.
541, 58 N. E. 663, 79 Am. St. Rep. 676]'; Koke
V. Balken, 73 Hun 145, 25 N. Y. Suppl. 1038
[affirmed in 148 N. Y. 73"2, 42 N. E. 724];
Humbert v. Trinity Church, 24 Wend. 587;
Jackson v. Tibbits, & Cow. 241.
North Carolina. — Mott r. Carolina Land,
etc., Co., 146 jST. C. 525, 60 S. E. 423; St.
Peter's Church v. Bragaw, 144 N. C. 126, 56
S. E. 688, 10 L. E. A. K. S. 633; Ehea r.
Craig, 141 N. C. 602, 54 S. E. 408; Bullin
V. Hancock, 138 N. 0. 198, 50 S. E. 621;
Woodlief !•. Woedlief, 136 N. C. 133', 48 S. E.
5«3; Shannon r. Lamb, 126 N. C. 38, 35
S. E. 232; Roscoe (■. John L. Koper Lumber
Co., 124 X. C. 42, 32 S. E. 389; Morrison v.
Morrison, 122 N. C. 5«8, 29 S. E. 901; Lenoir
V. Valley River Min. Co., 113 N. C. 513, 18
S. E. 73 (holding that ownership under color
of title and the operation of the statute of
limitations may be shown in ejectment) ;
Lenoir v. Valley River Min. Co., 106 N. C.
473, 11 S. E. 516; Anders v. Anders, 31 N. C.
214; Hargrove v. Powell, 19 N. C. 97 (holding
that refusal to admit the right of a cotenant
subsequent to demise laid may give rise to
an inference of ouster at the time of the
demise) ; Cloud f. Webb, 15 N. C. 290, 25
Am. Dec. 711.
Oregon. — Mattis r. Hosmer, 37 Oreg. 523,
62 Pac. 17, 632.
Pennsylvania. — Rohrbach v. Sanders, 212
Pa. St. 636, 62 Atl. 27; Maul v. Rider, 51
Pa. St. 377; Bennet v. Bullock, 35 Pa. St.
364; Craig v. Craig, 8 Pa. Cas. 357, 11
Atl. 60; Law v. Patterson, 1 Watts & S. 184;
Lodge r. Patterson, 3 Watts 74, 27 Am. Dec.
335; Milliken r. Brown, 10 Serg. & R. 188;
Frederick v. Gray, 10 Serg. & E. 182.
South Carolina. — Burnett v. Crawford, 50
S. C. 161, 27 S. E. 645; Annely v. De Saus-
sure, 26 S. C. 497, 2 S. E. 490, 40 Am. St.
Rep. 725; Jefcoat v. Knotts, 13 Rich. 50;
Gray v. Bates, 3 Strobh. 498 ; Gray !-". Givens,
Riley Eq. 41, 2 Hill Eq. 511.
Tennessee. — Hubbard i. Wood, 1 Sneed
279.
Texas. — Moody i: Butler, 63 Tex. 210;
Baily v. Trammell, 27 Tex. 317; Alexander
r. Kennedy, 19 Tex. 488, 49'3, 70 Am. Dec.
358i; Cryer r. Andrews, 11 Tex. 170; Honea
v. Arledge, (Civ. App. 1909) 120 S. W. 508;
Frey v. Myers, (Civ. App. 1908) 113 S. W.
592; Keith r. Keith, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 363,
87 S. W. 384; Madison i: Matthews, (Civ.
App. 1902) 66- S. W. 803; Neweomb v. Cox,
27 Tex. Civ. App. 583, 66 S. W. 338 ; Garcia
i: Illg, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 482, 37 S. W. 471.
Vermont.— Chandler r. Ricker, 49 Vt. 128 ;
Holley v. Hawley, 39 Vt. 525, 94 Am. Dec.
350; Brock !:. Eastman, 28 Vt. 658, 67 Am.
Dec. 733; Carpenter v. Thayer, 15 Vt. 552.
Washington. — ■ Cox r. Tompkinson, 39
Wash. 70, 80 Pac. 1005.
West Virginia. — Russell r. Tennant, 63
W. Va. 623, 60 S. E. 609, 129 Am. St. Rep.
1024; Oneal r. Stimson, 61 W. Va. 551, 56
S. E. 889; Justice r. Lawson, 46 W. Va. 163,
[m, c, 3, b, (I)]
33 S. E. 102; Parker !;. Brast, 45 W. Va.
399, 32 S. E. 269 ; Davis v. Settle, 43 W. Va.
17, 26 S. E. 557 ; Cooey v. Porter, 22 W. Va.
120.
Wisconsin. — McCann i: Welch, 106 Wis.
142, 81 N. W. 9«6; Stewart c. Stewart, 83
Wis. 364, 53 N. W. 686, 35 Am. St. Rep. 67.
United States. — Clymer v. Dawkins, 3 How.
674, 11 L. ed. 778; Elder v. McClaskey, 70
Fed. 529, 17 C. C. A. 251 [reversing 47 Fed.
154].
England. — Doe v. Prosser, Cowp. 217, 98
Eng. Eeprint 1052.
Canada. — Zwicker v. Morash, 34 Nova
Scotia 565 (holding that the occupying of
the common land by a structure such as to
necessarily exclude the cotenants amounts to
an ouster) ; Mason v. Xorris, 18 Grant Ch.
(U. C.) 50O; Van Velsor r. Hughson, 45
U. C. Q. B. 252, 9 Ont. App. 390.
See 45. Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 42 et seq.
Not sufierlng a cotenant to enter and oc-
cupy the common property by virtue of the
cotenancy is an ouster. Norris f. Sullivan,
47 Conn. 474; Barret r. Coburn, 3 Mete.
(Ky.) 510; Gill v. Fauntleroy, 8 B. Mon.
(Kv.) 177; Bracket r. Xoreross, 1 Me. 89;
Jordan r. Surghnor, 107 Mo. 520, 17 S. W.
1009; Vandyek v. Van Beuren, 1 Cai. (X. Y.)
84.
Demand and refusal. — A demand for pos-
session by one of the cotenants by virtue of
the cotenancy, and a refusal of such demand,
is an ouster, but otherwise if the demand is
based upon an independent claim of title.
Meredith v. Andres, 29' N. C. 5, 45 Am. Dec.
504. See also Wooster v. Hunts Lyman Iron
Co., 38 Conn. 256.
Facts held insufficient to prove ouster or
adverse holding as between cotenants. — A
claim not including the entire common prop-
erty, but only an undivided portion thereof
(Chapman i: KuUman, 191 Mo. 237, 89 S. W.
924; Edwards v. Bishop, 4 N. Y. 61; Earn-
shaw V. Myers, 1 N. Y. Suppl. 901; Clymer
r. Dawkins, 3 How. (U. S.) 674, 11 L. ed.
778) ; in the absence of notice to his coten-
ants of adverse holding or of a demand for
admission and a refusal thereof, the posses-
sion, control, payment of taxes or expenses,
or the improvement of the common property
by one cotenant therein (Miller r. Myers, 46
Cal. 535; Wooster v. Hunts Lyman Iron Co.,
38 Conn. 256; Newell r. Woodruff, 30 Conn.
492 ; Donason v. Barbero, 230 111. 138, 82
N. E. 620; Blackaby i: Blackaby, 185 111. 94,
56 N. E. 1053; McMahill i: Torrence, 163
111. 277, 45 N. E. 269 ; Hudson r. Coe, 79 Me.
83, 8 Atl. 249, 1 Am. St. Rep. 288; Colburn
v. Mason, 25 Me. 434, 43 Am. Dec. 292;
Dahlem r. Abbott, 146 Mich. 605, 110 N. W.
47; Perkins v. Eaton, 64 N. H. 359, 10 Atl.
704; Madison v. Matthews, (Tex. Civ. App.
1902) 66 S. W. 803; Chandler v. Ricker, 49
Vt. 128; Boggess v. Meredith, 16 W. Va. 1),
even under a deed from a stranger to one of
the tenants in common and the recording of
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 CycJ 27
repudiating the relation of cotenancy,' for an ouster of one tenant in common by
his cotenant is not to be presumed in the absence of some open notorious act of
ouster and adverse possession, and possession by a tenant in common is not adverse
as to his cotenants until they are so informed, either by express notice or by acts
of such an open, notorious, and hostile character as to be notice in themselves,
or sufficient to put the cotenants upon inquiry which if diligently pursued will
lead to actual knowledge,^ the acts and declarations of a tenant in common,
said deed (Thornton v. York Bank, 43 Me.
158; Holley v. Hawley, 39 Vt. 525, 94 Am.
Dec. 350) ; a mere claim under a deed (Ed-
wards V. Bishop, 4 N. Y. 61) ; the claim made
to the son of a living tenant in common that
claimant had more right in the premises than
he, the son, had (Campau v. Campau, 45
Mich. 367, 8 N. W. 85) ; the distribution of
lands by a probate court only authorized by
statute to distribute undivided portions
thereof (Mitchell v. Hazen, 4 Conn. 495, 10
Am. Dec. ISS) ; a mere demand and refusal
to be let into possession (Carpentier v. Men-
denhall, 28 Cal. 484, 8i7 Am. Dec. 135) ; direct
or indirect purchase of an outstanding title
(English V. Powell, 119 Ind. 93, 21 N. E.
458) ; and admission of possession of de-
manded premises and the remark that " it
is hard to pay twice " ( Colburn v. Mason, 25
Me. 434, 43 Am. Dec. 292).
Facts held sufScient to prove ouster or
adverse holding as between cotenants. — ^Acts
or matters in pais (Russell v. Tennant, 63
W. Va. 623, 60 S. E. 609, 129 Am. St. Rep.
1024) ; adverse possession for a long time
under a purchase and claim in entirety (Illg
V. Garcia, 92 Tex. 251, 47 S. W. 717; Clymer
V. Dawkins, 3 How. (U. S.) 674, 11 L. ed.
778) ; acceptance of a deed of the whole
property, duly acknowledged and recorded,
from one who has no title, and claiming and
exercising the rights of sole ownership under
a denial of any other person's right in the
premises (Thornton v. York Bank, 45 Me.
158; Holley V. Hawley, 39 Vt. 525, 94 Am.
Dec. 350) ; refusal to give up a moiety, and
declaration that the one in possession would
first litigate his rights (Marcy v. Marcy, 6
Mete. (Mass.) 360) ; purchase of outstanding
title with claim of sole ownership there-
under (Clark V. Crego, 47 Barb. (N. Y.) 599
[affirmed in 51 N. Y. 646]) ; demand to be
let into possession and refusal, together with
sale of the entire property by one cotenant
therein and delivery of possession to the
grantee thereunder (Wright v. Saddler, 20
N. Y. 320) ; and assumption of ownership
and sale of the common property (Dyckraan
V. Valiente, 42 N. Y. 549).
1. Alabama. — Courtner «. Etheredge, 149
Ala. 78, 43 So. 368; Stevenson v. Anderson,
87 Ala. 228, 6 So. 285; Gotten v. Thompson,
26 Ala. 671.
California. — Carpentier v. Mendenhall, 28
Cal. 484, 87 Am. Dec. 135.
Connecticut. — Wooster f. Hunts Lyman
Iron Co., 38 Conn. 256.
Georgia. — Roumillot f. Gardner, 113 Ga.
60, 38 8. B. 362, 53 L. R. A. 729.
Illinois. — Carpenter v. Fletcher, 239 111.
440, 88 N. E. 162; Donason v. Barbero, 230
111. 138, 82 N. E. 620; Comer v. Comer, 119
111. 170, 8 N. E. 796.
Indiana. — King t. Carmichael, 136 Ind. 20,
35 N. E. 509, 43 Am. St. Rep. 303 ; English v.
Powell, 119 Ind. 93, 21 N. E. 458.
Iowa. — Van Ormer v. Harley, 102 Iowa
150, 71 N. W. 241; Smith v. Young, 89 Iowa
338, 56 N. W. 506.
Kansas. — Schoonover V. Tyner, 72 Kan.
475, 84 Pac. 124.
UaAne. — Hudson v. Ooe, 79 Me. 83, 8 Atl.
249, 1 Am. St. Rep. 288 (holding slight acts
of ownership on wild lands insufficient) ; Col-
burn V. Mason, 25 Me. 434, 43 Am. Dec. 292.
Michigan. — Butcher v. Butcher, 137 Mich.
390, 100 N. W. 604.
Missouri. — Benoist v. Rothschild, 145 Mo.
399, 46 S. W. 1081; McQuiddy v. Ware, 67
Mo. 74.
New Hampshire. — Perkins v. Eaton, 64
N. H. 359, 10 Atl. 704.
New Mexico. — Neher v. Armijo, 9 N. M.
325, 54 Pac. 236.
New York. — Edwards v. Bishop, 4 N. Y.
61; Northrop v. Wright, 24 Wend. 221.
Ohio. — Elsenheimer v. Sieck, 8 Ohio Dec.
(Reprint) 101, 5 Cine. L. Bui. 645.
Pennsylvania. — Phillips v. Gregg, 10 Watts
158, 36 Am. Dec. 158; Tanney v. Tanney,
24 Pittsb. Leg. J. N. S. 43 [affirmed in 159
Pa. St. 277, 28 Atl. 287, 39 Am. St. Rep.
678].
Tennessee. — Elliott v. Holder, 3 Head 698.
Teaeas.—Wmgo v. Rudder, (1910) 124 S. W.
899; Teal V. Terrell, 58 Tex. 257; Niday v.
Cochran, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 292, 93 S. W.
1027.
Vermont. — Avery v. Hall, 50 Vt. 11 ; Chand-
ler V. Ricker, 49 Vt. 128 ; Leach v. Beattie, 33
Vt. 195.
Virginia. — Buchanan v. King, 22 Gratt.
414.
United States. — Zeller v. Eckert, 4 How.
289, 11 L. ed. 979 ; Bradstreet v. Huntington,
5 Pet. 402, 440, 8 L. ed. 170; McClung v.
Ross, 5 Wheat. 116, 5 L. ed. 46; Barr v.
Gratz, 4 Wheat. 213, 4 L. ed. 553.
England. — Denys i;. Shuckburgh, 5 Jur.
21, 4 Y. & C. Exch. 42.
See 46 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 42 et seq.
2. Alabama. — Sumner v. Hill, 157 Ala. 230,
47 So. 565; Cramton v. Rutledge, 157 Ala.
141, 47 So. 214; Courtner v. Etheredge, 149
Ala. 78, 43 So. 368; Gulf Red Cedar Lumber
Co. v. Crenshaw, 148 Ala. 343, 42 So. 564;
Moragne v. Doe, 143 Ala. 459, 39 So. 161.
Ill Am. St. Rep. 52; Inglis v. Webb, 117
Ala. 387, 23 So. 125 ; Sibley v. Alba, 95 Ala.
191, 10 So. 831; Fielder v. Childs, 73 Ala.
567.
[Ill, C, 3, b, (I)]
28 [38 CycJ
TENANCY IN COMMON
intended to show his adverse holding so as to entitle him to the benefit of the
Arkansas. — McKneely «. Terry, 61 Ark.
527, 33 S. W. 953; Brewer v. Keeler, 42 Ark.
289.
California. — Faubel v. McFarland, 144 Cal.
717, 78 Pac. 261; Webb K. Winter, (1901)
65 Pac. 1028; Plass t. Plass, 121 Cal. 131, 53
Pac. 448; Gregory v. Gregory, 102 Cal. 50,
36 Pac. 364; Gage v. Downey, 94 Cal. 241,
29 Pac. 635; In re Grider, 81 Cal. 571, 22
Pac. 908; McClure v. Colyear, 80 Cal. 378,
22 Pac. 175; Oglesby v. HoUiater, 76 Cal.
136, 18 Pac. 146, 9 Am. St. Rep. 177;
Aguirre x. Alexander, 58 Cal. 21; Olney f.
Sawyer, 54 Cal. 379; Packard «. Johnson, 51
Cal. 545 ; Miller v. Myers, 46 Cal. 535 ; Born-
heimer f. Baldwin, 42 Cal. 27; Carpentier v.
Gardiner, 29 Cal. 160; Owen f. Morton, 24
Cal. 373; Colman v. Clements, 23 Cal. 245;
Baumgarten v. Mitchell, 10 Cal. App. 48, 101
Pac. 43.
Connecticut. — ^Wooster r. Hunts Lyman
Iron Co., 38 Conn. 256. But see Adams l".
Manning, 51 Conn. 5.
Delaware. — Jlilbourn v. David, 7 Houst.
209, 30 Atl. 971.
District of Columbia. — Morris v. Wheat,
11 App. Cas. 201.
Florida. — Coogler v. Rogers, 25 Fla. 853, 7
So. 391.
Georgia. — Harriss v. Howard, 126 Ga. 325,
55 S. E. 59; Morgan f. Mitchell, 104 6a,
596, 30 S. E. 792; Morris r. Davis, 75 Ga.
169; Boyd V. Hand, 65 Ga. 468.
Haicaii. — Smith t. Hamakua Mill Co., 13
Hawaii 717; Nakuaimanu v. Halstead, 4
Hawaii 42.
Illinois. — Donason r. Barbero, 230 111. 138,
82 N. E. 620; Waterman Hall t. Waterman,
220 111. 569, 77 N. E. 142, 4 L. R. A. N. S.
776; Steele v. Steele, 220 111. 318, 77 N. E.
232; Comer v. Comer, IW 111. 170, 8 N. E.
796; Cooter v. Dearborn, 115 111. 50«, 4 N. E.
388; Stevens v. Wait, 112 111. 544; NicoU v.
Scott, 99 111. 529; Lavelle f. Strobel, 89 111.
370; Ball v. Palmer, 81 111. 370: Buseh v.
Huston, 75 111. 343; Xoble v. McFarland, 51
111. 226.
Indiana. — Wilmore v. Stetler, 137 Ind. 127,
34 N. E. 357, 36 N. E. 856, 45 Am. St. Rep.
169; Myers v. Jackson, 136 Ind. 136, 34
N. E. 810; Peden r. Cavins, 134 Ind. 494,
34 N. E. 7, 39 Am. St. Rep. 276; English
V. Powell, 119 Ind. 93, 21 N. E. 458;
Bender v. Stewart, 75 Ind. 88 ; Bowen v.
Preston, 48 Ind. 367; Doe v. McCleary, 2
Ind. 405.
Iowa. — Curtis f. Barber, 131 Iowa 400,
108 N. W. 755, 117 Am. St. Rep. 425; Bader
f. Dyer, 106 Iowa 715, 77 N. W. 469, 68 Am.
St. Rep. 332 ; Van Ormer v. Harley, 102 Iowa
150, 71 N. W. 241 ; Smith v. Young, 89 Iowa
338, 56 N. W. 506; Willcuts f. Rollins, 85
Iowa 247, 52 N. W. 199; Sorenson r. Davis,
83 Iowa 405, 49 N. W. 1004; Knowles v.
Brown, 69 Iowa 11, 28 N. W. 409; Laraway
V. Larue, 63 Iowa 407, 19 N. W. 242 ; Moore
V. Antill, 53 Iowa 612, 6 N. W. 14; Hume v.
Long, 53 Iowa 299, 5 N. W. 193; Burns V.
Byrne, 45 Iowa 285.
[Ill, C, 3, b, (I)]
Kansas. — Sparks v. Bodensick, 72 Kan. 5,
82 Pac. 463.
Kentucky. — Bush v. Fitzgeralds, (1910)
125 S. W. 716; Kidd V. Bell, (1900) 122
S. W. 232; Hamilton v. Steele, (1905) 117
S. W. 378; Vermillion v. Nickell, (1908) 114
S. W. 270; Barret v. Coburn, 3 Mete. 510;
Russell V. Mark, 3 Mete. 37 ; Young f. Adams,
14 B. Mon. 127, 58 Am. Dec. 654; Gill v.
Fauntleroy, 8 B. Mon. 177 ; Taylor V. Cox, 2
B. Mon. 429; Coleman v. Hutchenson, 3 Bibb
209, 6 Am. Dec. 649; Baker v. Royal Lead,
etc., Co., 107 S. W. 704, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 982.
Louisiana. — Simon v. Richard, 42 La. Ann.
842, 8 So. 62fl; Gosselin v. Abat, 3 La. 549.
Maine. — Mansfield v. McGinnis, 86 Me.
118, 29 Atl. 956, 41 Am. St. Rep. 532; Hud-
son V. Coe, 79 Me. 83, 8 Atl. 249, 1 Am. St.
Rep. 288; Billings v. Gibbs, 55 Me. 238, 92
Am. Dec. 587; Bird v. Bird, 40 Me. 398;
Small r. Clifford, 38 Me. 213.
Maryland. — Van Bibber t. Frazier, 17 Md.
436 ; Lloyd v. Gordon, 2 Harr. & M. 254.
Massachusetts. — Joyce r. Dyer, 189 Mass.
64, 75 N. E. 81, 109 Am. St. Rep. 603; Parker
V. Proprietors of Merrimack River Locks,
etc., 3 Mete. 91, 3 Am. Dee. 121; Burghardt
V. Turner, 12 Pick. 534.
Michigan. — Loranger v. Carpenter, 148
Mich. 549, 112 N. W. 125; Weshgyl r. Schick,
113 Mich. 22, 71 N. W. 323 ; Campau v. Cam-
pau, 44 Mich. 31, 5 N. W. 1062.
Mississippi. — Gardiner v. Hinton, 86 Miss.
604, 38 So. 779, 109 Am. St. Rep. 726; Bent-
ley V. Callaghan, 79 Miss. 302, 30 So. 709;
Jonas r. Flanniken, 69 Miss. 577, 11 So. 319.
Missouri. — Chapman v. KuUman, 191 Mo.
237, 89 S. W. 924; Coberly r. Coberlv, 189
Mo. 1, 87 S. W. 957; XJolden v. Tyer, 180 Mo.
196, 79 S. W. 143; Whitaker v. Whitaker,
157 Mo. 342, 58 S. W. 5 ; Benoist v. Roths-
child, 145 Mo. 399, 46 S. W. 1081 ; Minton v.
Steele, 125 Mo. 181, 28 S. W. 746 ; Comstock
V. Eastwood, 108 Mo. 41, 18 S. W. 39; La
Riviere v. la, Riviere, 77 Mo. 512; Warfield
i: Lindell, 38 Mo. 561, 90 Am. Dec. 443;
Robidoux V. Cassilegi, 10 Mo. App. 516.
Montana. — Ayotte v. Nadeau, 32 Mont. 498,
81 Pac. 145; Southmayd v. Southmayd, 4
Mont. 100, 6 Pac. 318.
New Hampshire. — i Brooks V. Fowle, 14
N. H. 248.
New Jersey. — Foulke v. Bond, 41 N. J. li.
527.
New York. — Millard r. McMullin, 68 N. Y.
345; MeroUa l'. Lane, 122 N. Y. App. Div.
535, 107 N. Y. Suppl. 439; Hamershlag v.
Duryea, 38 N. Y. App. Div. 130, 56 N. Y.
Suppl. 615; Stoddard v. Weston, 3 Silv. Sup.
13, 6 N. Y. Suppl. 34; Beat v. Miller, 3
Thomps. & C. 6'64; Oonstantine v. Van
Winkle, 6 Hill 177; Butler i\ Phelps, 17
Wend. 642 ; Jackson v. Brink, 5 Cow. 483.
North Carolina. — Mott v. Carolina Land,
etc., Co., 146 N. C. 525, 60 S. E. 423; Rhea
f. Craig, 141 N. C. 602, 54 S. E. 408; Deans
r. Gay, 132 N. C. 227, 43 S. E. 643; Hardee r.
Weathington, 130 N. C. 91, 40 S. E. 855;
Shannon V. Lamb, 126 N. C. 38, 35 S. E.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 GycJ 29
statute of limitations, being construed more strongly against him than such
232; Gay lord v. Respass, 92 N. C. 553; With-
row V. Biggerstaff, 82 N. C. 82; Day f.
Howard, 73 N. C. 1; Linker r. Benson, 67
N. C. 150; Wagstaff u. Smith, 39 N. C. 1;
Anders f. Anders, 31 N. C. 214 (holding that
the rule applies even in the case of a tenant
in oommon holding over after a partition) ;
Saunders v. Gatlin, 21 N. C. 86; Hargrove
f. Powell, 19 N. C. 97. See also Midford v.
Hardison, 7 ' N. C. 164, holding that mere
adverse possession does not deprive tenants
in common of right of entry. Compare
Cloud V. Webb, 15 N. C. 290, 25 Am. Dec.
711.
Ohio. — Hogg V. Beerman, 41 Ohio St. 81,
52 Am. Rep. 71; Youngs v. Heffner, 36 Ohio
St. 232 ; Payne v. Cooksey, 8 Ohio S. & C. PI.
Dec. 407, 7 Ohio N. P. 90.
Oregon. — Mattis f. Hosmer, 37 Oreg. 523,
62 Pac. 17, 632; Wheeler v. Taylor, 32 Oreg.
421, 52 Pac. 183, 67 Am. St. Rep. 540.
Pennsylvania. — Maul v. Rider, 51 Pa. St.
337; Tulloch v. Worrall, 49 Pa. St. 133; For-
ward V. Deetz, 32 Pa. St. 69; Keyser v.
Evans, 30 Pa. St. 507; Workman v. Guthrie,
29 Pa. St. 495, 72 Am. Dec. 654; Peck v.
Ward, 18 Pa. St. 506; Frederick v. Gray, 10
Serg. & R. 182; Richards v. Richards, 31
Pa. Super Ct. 509; Devlin's Estate, 5 Pa.
Dist. 125, 17 Pa. Co. Ct. 433, 12 Montg. Co.
Rep. 126.
Porto Rico. — Soriano V. Arrese, 1 Porto
Rico Fed. 198.
South Carolina. — Powers f. Smith, 80 S. C.
110, 61 S. E. 222; Green v. Cannady, 77 S. C.
193, 57 S. E. 832; Coleman «. Coleman, 71
S. C. 518, 51 S. E. 250; Burnett f. Craw-
ford, 50 S. C. 161, 27 S. E. 645; McGee v.
Hall, 26 S. C. 179, 1 S. E. 711; Villard v.
Robert, 1 Strobh. Eq. 393.
South Dakota. — 'Barrett v. McCarty, 20
S. D. 75, 104 N. W. 907.
Tennessee. — Buck v. Williams, 10 Heisk.
264; Hilton v. Duncan, 1 Coldw. 313; Elliott
V. Holder, 3 Head 698; Hubbard v. Wood, 1
Sneed 279; Terrill v. Murry, 4 Yerg. 104;
Gross V. Washington, (Ch. App. 1896) 38
S. W. 442.
Texas. — Broom v. Pearson, 98 Tex. 469, 85
S. W. 7-90, 86 S. W. 733 ; Phillipson f. Flynn,
83 Tex. 580, 19 S. W. 136; McDougal «.
Bradford, 80 Tex. 558, 16 S. W. 619; St.
Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Prather, 75 Tex. 53, 12
S. W. 969; Moody v. Butler, 63 Tex. 210;
Peeler v. Guilkey, 27 Tex. 355 ; Baily v. Tram-
mell, 27 Tex. 317; Alexander v. Kennedy, 19
Tex. 488, 493, 70 Am. Dee. 358; Franks v.
Hancock, 1 Tex. Unrep. Cas. 554; Niday V.
Cochran, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 292, 93 S. W.
1027; Keith v. Keith, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 363,
87 S. W. 384; Newcomb v. Cox, 27 Tex. Civ.
App. 583, 66 S. W. 338 ; Gist v. East, 16 Tex.
Civ. App. 274, 41 S. W. 396; House f. Wil-
liams, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 122, 40 S. W. 414;
Garcia v. Illg, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 482, 37 S. W.
471; Scofield v. Douglass, (Tex. Civ. App.
1895) 30 S. W. 817; Noble v. Hill, 8 Tex.
Civ. App. 171, 27 S. W. 756 ; Beall v. Evans,
1 Tex. Civ. App. 443, 20 S. W. 945.
Vermont. — Roberts v. Morgan, 30 Vt. 319;
Buckmaster v. Needham, 22 Vt. 617; Catlin
V. Kidder, 7 Vt. 12.
Virginia. — Pillow v. Southwest Virginia
Imp. Co., 92 Va. 144, 23 S. E. 32, 53 Am. St.
Rep. 804; Hannon v. Hannah, 9 Gratt. 146.
Washington. — Stone v. Marshall, 52 Wash.
375, 100 Pac. 858.
West Virginia. — Oneal v. Stimson, 61
W. Va. 551, 56 S. E. 889; Reed v. Bachmau,
61 W. Va. 452, 57 S. E. 769, 123 Am. St. Rep.
996 ; Clark V. Beard, 59 W. Va. 669, 53 S. E.
597; Justice t. Lawson, 46 W. Va. 163, 33
S. E. 102; Cooey t. Porter, 22 W. Va. 120;
Boggess V. Meredith, 16 W. Va. 1.
Wisconsin. — McCann v. Welch, 106 Wis.
142, 81 N. W. 996; Saladin t. Kraayvanger,
96 Wis. 180, 70 N. W. 1113; Stewart v.
Stewart, 83 Wis. 364, 53 N. W. 686, 35 Am.
St. Rep. 67; Sydnor v. Palmer, 29 Wis. 226.
But see Roberts v. Decker, 120 Wis. 102, 97
N. W. 519, holding that the rule that mere
possession without notice is not adverse has
no application to a case where one is in pos-
session, under a claim of right founded on a
conveyance, and his grantors never acknowl-
edged or knew of a claim of cotenancy.
United States. — Union Consol. Silver Min.
Co. V. Taylor, 100 U. S. 37, 25 L. eo. 541;
Zeller v. Eckert 4 How. 289, 11 L. ed. 979;
Clymer v. Dawkins, 3 How. 674, 11 L. ed. 778;
Bradstreet v. Huntington, 5 Pet. 402, 8 L. ed.
170; McClung f. Ross, 5 Wheat. 116, 5 L. ed.
46; Elder v. McClaskey, 70 Fed. 529, 17
C. C. A. 251 [reversing 47 Fed. 154] (holding,
however, that this rule has no application
unless the possession was avowedly begun as
that of a tenant in common or under a deed
■which defined the possession as such) ; Van
Gunden v. Virginia Coal, etc., Co., 52 Fed.
838, 3 C. C. A. 294 ; Baker v. Whiting, 2 Fed.
Cas. No. 787, 3 Sumn. 475 ; Dexter v. Arnold,
7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,859, 2 Sumn. 152; Scott f.
Evans, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,529, 1 McLean
486.
Canada. — Doe v. Marks, 5 N. Brunsw. 659 ;
Harris v. Mudie, 7 Ont. App. 414 [affirming
30 U. C. C. P. 484] ; Hartley v. Maycock, 28
Ont. 508; Kennedy v. Bateman, 27 Grant
Ch. (U. C.) 380; Mason v. Norris, 18 Grant
Ch. (U. C.) 500.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," |§ 32, 49.
The question of ouster is usually a ques-
tion for the jury. Hambyf. Folsam, 148 Ala.
221, 42 So. 548; LaFountain v. Dee, 110 Mich.
347, 63 N. W. 220; Warfield v. Lindell, 38
Mo. 561, 90 Am. Dee. 443; Beall f. Mc-
Menemy, 63 Nebr. 70, 88 N. W. 134, 93 Am.
St. Rep. 427; Jackson v. Whitbeck, 6 Cow.
(N. Y.) 632, 16 Am. Dec. 454; Keyser v.
Evans, 30 Pa. St. 507 ; Blackmore v. Gregg, 2
Watts & S. (Pa.) 182; Marr v. Gilliam, 1
Coldw. (Tenn.) 488; Purcell f. Wilson, 4
Gratt. (Va.) 16. The jury may presume
notice from facts and circumstances. Carpen-
tier V. Mendenhall, 28 Cal. 484, 87 Am. Dec.
135; Rohrbach v. Sanders, 212 Pa. St. 636, 62
Atl. 27 ; Peeler v. Guilkev, 27 Tex. 355 ; Van
[III, C, 3, b, (I)]
30 [38 Cyc]
TENANCY IN COMMON
acts and declarations would have been construed had there been no privity.^
Thus acts of a tenant in common or those claiming under him, in relation to the
common property, consistent with his interests by virtue of the cotenancy therein,
cannot give rise to the presumption of an adverse possession as against his
cotenants,* and the entry and possession of one cotenant being ordinarily deemed
not adverse to them, unless notice is clearly
brought to them that he claims the entire
tract as exclusive owner, and unless his
previous actual possession and cultivation of
a small part of the tract was such as to sup-
port the statute of limitations as to the en-
tire tract. Hess f. Webb, (Tex. Civ. App.
1908) 113 S. W. 018.
An infant is not chargeable with notice.
Northrop f. Marquam, 16 Oreg. 173, 18 Pac.
449.
Where a tenant in common of land enters
thereon and cuts timber, he is presumed to
enter under his legal title, there being no
evidence of any ouster of the cotenants.
Whiting f. Dewey, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 428;
Shumway v. Holbrook, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 114,
11 Am. Dec. 153; Strong f. Richardson, 19 Vt.
194. Where a cotenant pays taxes on the
common land, takes timber therefrom and
feeds cattle thereon, such acts are consistent
with his interest therein and hence do not
constitute adverse possession as against his
cotenant. McQuiddy t. Ware, 67 Mo. 74;
Griffies v. Griffies, 8 L. T. Rep. N. S. 758, 11
Wkly. Rep. 943.
3. Connecticut. — Newell v. Woodruff, 30
Conn. 492.
Illinois. — Ball v. Palmer, 81 111. 370.
KentiicTcy. — Barret r. Coburn, 3 Jletc. 510.
Maryland. — ^Van Bibber r. Frazier, 17 Md.
436.
Massachusetts. — Burghardt v. Turner, 12
Pick. 534.
North Carolina. — Tharpe r. Holcomb, 126
N. C. 365, 35 S. E. 608.
Oregon. — Minter v. Durnham, 13 Oreg.
470, 11 Pac. 231.
Pennsylvania. — Forward v. Deetz, 32 Pa.
St. 69; Peck v. Ward, 18 Pa. St. 506.
Texas. — Alexander v. Kennedy, 19 Tex.
488, 70 Am. Dec. 358; Franks v. Hancock, 1
Tex. XJnrep. Cas. 554; Garcia v. Illg, 14 Tex.
Civ. App. 482, 37 S. W. 471 ; Noble v. Hill,
8 Tex. Civ. App. 171, 27 S. W. 756.
Wisconsin. — Challefoux v. Ducharme, 8
Wis. 287.
4. California. — Christy v. Spring Valley
Water Works, 97 Cal. 21, 31 Pac. 1110; Tab-
ler 1-. Peverill, 4 Cal. App. 671, 88 Pac. 994.
Connecticut. — White v. Beckwith, 62 Conn.
79, 25 Atl. 400.
Illinois. — Brumback v. Brumback, 198 111.
66, 64 N. E. 741 ; Blackaby i: Blackaby, 185
111. 94, 56 N. E. 1053 ; McMahill v. Torrence,
163 III. 277, 45 N. E. 269.
Indiana. — Sanford v. Tucker, 54 Ind. 219.'
JoMJa.— Frye v. Gullion, 143 Iowa 719, 121
N. W. 563; German v. Heath, 139 Iowa 52,
116 N. W. 1061.
Massachusetts. — Ingalls v. Newhall, 139
Mass. 268, 30 _N. E. 96 (where the erection
of a light, easily removable structure by one
of the cotenants, with a, pump within a sur-
Gunden v. Virginia Coal, etc., Co., 62 Fed.
838, 3 C. C. A. 294. And if the tendency
of the alleged acts be such that a jury may
fairly infer therefrom an intention to oust
the other cotenants, all other requisites con-
curring, such acts may be held to be acts of
ouster or disseizin. Zapf v. Carter, 70 App.
Div. 396, 75 N. Y. Suppl. 197.
Water rights see Shannon v. Lamb, 126
N. C. 38, 35 S. E. 232; Mattis v. Hosmer, 37
Oreg. 523, 62 Pac. 17, 632; Justice v. Law-
son, 46 W. Va. 163, 33 S. E. 102; McCann v.
Welch, 106 Wis. 142, 81 N. W. 996. The
erection of a wharf by one cotenant on a por-
tion of a water lot owned in common,
and his sole occupancy of the wharf, amounts
to an ouster, because the structure is in its
nature permanent and is suited for only one
purpose and is essentially a unit and in-
canable of separate occupancy. Annely v.
De Saussure, 26 S. C. 4«7, 2 S. E. 490, 40
Am. St. Rep. 725; Zwicker f. Morash, 34
Nova Scotia 655.
But the vendee of a tenant in common set-
ting up a claim in his own right to the whole
tract of land is in no relation to the tenants
in common or those claiming under them,
imposing on him the obligation of giving
notice either actually or constructively as a
condition precedent to the assertion of a
hostile claim. Gardiner r. Hinton, 86 Miss.
604, 109 Am. St. Rep. 726, 38 So. 779.
A declaration of such intention to a.
stranger is not sufficient unless brought to
the knowledge of the cotenant sought to be
ousted. Loranger v. Carpenter, 148 Mich.
549, 112 N. W. 125; Warfield t". Lindell, 30
Mo. 272, 77 Am. Dec. 614.
A tenant in common holding the common
property mistakenly, believing herself to be
the sole owner, her cotenants sharing said
belief, holds adversely. Wheeler v. Taylor,
32 Oreg. 421, 52 Pac. 183, 67 Am. St. Rep.
540.
An actual verbal claim of adverse owner-
ship to a, cotenant personally is not necessary
to prove an ouster by one in possession doing
overt acts indicating a hostile claim. Casey
V. Casey, 107 Iowa 192, 77 N. W. 844, 70 Am.
St. Rep. 190 ; Dunlap v. Griffith, 146 Mo. 283,
47 S. W. 917.
Taking with knowledge of cotenancy. —
Where a grantee takes title with knowledge,
and in recognition of the existing cotenancy,
even on condition that the part of the land
that he has taken shall be subsequently par-
titioned to him, such taking will merely have
the same effect as if said possession had been
so taken by the vendor himself. Chiles v.
Jones, 7 Dana (Ky.) 528.
A purchaser of the interest of an heir in a
tract of land of the deceased ancestor be-
comes a tenant in common with the other
heirs, and after his purchase his possession is
[III, C, 3, b, (I)]
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 31
the entry and possession of all, mere possession by one cotenant cannot operate
as an ouster or disseizin as against his cotenants,^ even when attended with the
rounding wall, his leasing, of the structure,
collecting of the rents and payment of the
taxes was held not to amount to an ouster
of the other cotenants, who used the house
and pump as they found convenient) ; Burg-
hardt V. Turner, 12 Pick. 534 (holding that
it requires very clear evidence of the adverse
possession of uninclosed woodland to raise
a presumption of ouster) ; Higbee i. Rice, 5
Mass. 344, 4 Am. Dec. 63.
Michigan. — Pierson v. Conley, 95 Mich.
619, 55 N. W. 387.
Mississippi. — Alsobrook v. Eggleston, 69
Miss. 833, 13i So. 850.
Missouri. — McQuiddy f. Ware, 67 Mo. 74.
South Dakota. — Barrett t". McCarty, 20
S. D. 76, 104 N. W. 907.
Texas. — Madison v. Matthews, (Civ. App.
1902) 66 S. W. 803; Garcia v. Illg, 14 Tex.
Civ. App. 482, 37 S. W. 471.
Virginia. — Lagoria v. Dozier, 91 Va. 492,
22 S. E. 239; Hannon v. Hannah, 9 Gratt.
146.
West yirginia. — Clark v. Beard, 59' W. Va.
669, 53 S. E. 597.
United States. — ^McClaskeyr. Barr, 47 Fed.
154 [reversed on other grounds in 70 Fed.
529, 17 C. C. A. 251].
But evidence of such acts is competent to
go to the jury where the issue is one of ad-
verse possession. Ashford v. Ashford, 136
Ala. 631, 34 So. 10, 96 Am. St. Eep. 82;
Robidoux V. Cassilegi, 10 Mo. App. 516;
Susquehanna, etc., R., etc., Co. v. Quick, 61
Pa. St. 328 ; Bolton v. Hamilton, 2 Watts &
S. (Pa.) 294, 37 Am. Dec. 509.
The derivation of benefit from the common
property, by a tenant in common, without
in any way interfering with his cotenant's use
or enjoyment thereof, or in any way affecting
its value, neither gives rise to a presumption
of adverse use, nor is such cotenant entitled
to an accounting. Ragan v. McCoy, 29 Mo.
356; Howe Scale Co. «. Terry, 47 Vt. 109.
5. Alabama. — Cramton v. Rutledge, 156
Ala. 141, 47 So. 214; Layton V. Campbell,
155 Ala. 220, 46 So. 775, 130 Am. St. Rep.
17; Inglis f. W«bb, 117 Ala. 387, 23 So. 125.
California. — McCauley v. Harvey, 49 Cal.
497 (holding that undisturbed possession as
a tenant in common without acts of exclu-
sion, equivalent to an ouster, is insufficient
to create the benefit of the statute of limi-
tations) ; Owen V. Morton, 24 Cal. 373. Com-
pare Alvarado v. Nordholt, 95 Cal. 116, 30
Pac. 211.
Delaware. — Milbourn v. David, 7 Houst.
209', 30 Atl. 971.
Georgia. — Morgan v. Mitchell, 104 Ga.
596, 30 S. E. 792.
Illinois. — Carpenter v. Fletcher, 230 111.
440, 88 N. E. 162.
Indiana. — Peden t: Cavins, 134 Ind. 494,
34 N. E. 7, 39 Am. St. Rep. 276.
Iowa. — Sires v. Melvin, 135 Iowa 460, 113
N. W. 106; Casey v. Casey, 107 Iowa 192,
77 N. W. 844, 70 Am. St. Rep. 190; Bader
V. Dyer, 106 Iowa 715, 77 N. W. 469, 68 Am.
St. Rep. 332 ; Van Ormer v. Harley, 102 Iowa
150., 71 N. W. 241; Smith i;. Young, 89 Iowa
338, 56 N. W. 506; Alexander V. Sully, 50
Iowa 192; Flock v. Wyatt, 49 Iowa 466.
Kamsas. — Rand f. Huff, 6 Kan. App. 922,
51 Pac. 577 {affirmed in (1898) 53 Pac. 483].
Kentucky. — Greenhill v. Biggs, 85 Ky. 155,
2 S. W. 774, 8 Ky. L. Rep. 825, 7 Am. St.
Rep. 579; McSurley v. Venters, 104 S. W.
365, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 963.
Maine. — Mansfield v. McGinniss, 86 Me.
118, 29 Atl. 956, 41 Am. St. Rep. 532; Col-
burn v. Mason, 25 Me. 434, 43 Am. Dec. 292.
Massachusetts. — Joyce v. Dyer, 189 Mass.
64, 75 N. E. 81, 109 Am. St. Rep. 603.
Michigan. — Dahlem v. Abbott, 146 Mich.
605, 110 N. W. 47; Nowlen v. Hall, 128 Mich.
274, 87 N. W. 222; Weshgyl v. Schick, 113
Mich. 22, 71 N. W. 323.
Minnesota. — Lindley f. Groff, 37 Minn.
338, 34 N. W. 26; Berthold v. Fox, 13 Minn.
501, 97 Am. Dec. 243.
Mississippi. — Her v. Routh, 3 How. 276.
Missouri. — Seibert v. Hope, 221 Mo. 630,
120 S. W. 770; Dunlap v. Griffith, 146 Mo.
283, 47 S. W. 917; Long v. McDow, 87 Mo.
197; Warfield v. Lindell, 30 Mo. 272, 77. Am.
Dec. 614.
New York. — Kathan v. Rockwell, 16 Hun
90; Northrop v. Wright, 24 Wend. 221; Clapp
V. Bromagham, 9 Cow. 304; Jackson V.
Tibbits, 9 Cow. 241.
North Carolina. — Rhea v. Craig, 141 N. C.
602, 54 S. E. 408; Day v. Howard, 73 N. C. 1.
Oregon. — Wheeler v. Taylor, 32 Greg. 421,
52 Pac. 183, 67 Am. St. Rep. 540.
Pennsylvania. — Peck f. Ward, 18 Pa. St.
506; Berg v. McLafferty, 9 Pa. Cas. 135, 12
Atl. 460.
Porto Rico. — Ortiz Rodriguez v. Vivoni,
1 Porto Rico Fed. 487, 489.
South Carolina.- — Coleman v. Coleman, 71
S. C. 518, 51 S. E. 250; Burnett v. Crawford,
50 S. C. 161, 27 S. E. 645; Metz v. Metz, 48
S. C. 472, 26 S. E. 787; Gray v. Givena,
Riley Eq. 41, 2 Hill Eq. 511. But see Powers
V. Smith, 80 S. C. 110, 61 S. E. 222.
Tennessee. — Smith v. Kincaid, 10 Humphr.
73.
Texas. — Illg v. Garcia, 92 Tex. 251, 47
S. W. 717; Gist v. East, 16 Tex. Civ. App.
274, 41 S. W. 396; House v. Williams, 16
Tex. Civ. App. 122, 40 S. W. 414; Noble V.
Hill, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 171, 27 S. W. 756.
Vermont. — Buckmaster r. Needham, 22 Vt.
617; Catlin v. Kidder, 7 Vt. 12.
Virginia. — Johnston V. Virginia Coal, etc.,
Co., 96 Va. 158, 31 S. E. 85; Fry v. Payne,
82 Va. 759, 1 S. E. 197.
West Virginia. — Russell l'. Tennant, 63
W. Va. 623, 60 S. E. 609, 129 Am. St. Rep.
1024; Oneal v. Stimson, 61 W. Va. 551, 56
S. E. 889; Logan v. Ward, 58 W. Va. 366,
52 S. E. 398, 5 L. R. A. N. S. 156; Justice
V. Lawson, 46 W. Va. 163, 33 S. E. 102;
Davis V. Settle, 43 W. Va. 17, 26 S. E. 557.
[Ill, C, 3, b, (I)]
32 [38 Cyc]
TENANCY IN COMMON'
exclusive receipt of rents and profits,* and mere lapse of time or mere delay on
the part of a tenant in common not in possession, in failing to demand admission
to joint possession or a share of the rents and profits, is not sufficient to evidence
an adverse holding by the one in possession.' But very long undisturbed posses-
sion may give rise to such a presumption of ouster or grant as between cotenants
as to warrant the submission of the question of ouster to the jury,* and ouster
Canada. — Meyers v. Doyle, 9 U. C. C. P.
371. See Hill v. Grander, 1 U. C. Q. B. 3.
6. Georgia. — Morgan f. Mitchell, 104 Ga.
596, 30 S. E. 792.
Illinois. — Carpenter v. Fletcher, 239 111.
440, 88 N. E. 162; Todd f. Todd, 117 111. 92,
7 N. E. 583.
Uassaohusetts. — Higbee v. Eice, 5 Mass.
344, 4 Am. Dec. 63.
Missouri. — Rodney v. McLaughlin, 97 Mo.
426, 9 S. W. 726; Warfield K. Lindell, 30
Mo. 272, 77 Am. Dec. 614.
Pennsylvania. — Lewitzky v. Sotoloff, 224
Pa. St. 610, 73 Atl. 936; Bolton v. Hamilton,
2 Watts & S. 294, 37 Am. Dec. 509; Morris
f . Vanderen, 1 Dall. 64, 1 L. ed. 38 ; Sanders'
Estate, 41 Pa. Super. Ct. 77. Compare Milli-
ken V. Brown, 10 Serg. & R. 188.
South Carolina. — McGee f. Hall, 26 S. C.
179, 1 S. E. 711.
Texas. — Alexander v. Kennedy, 19 Tex. 488,
70 Am. Dec. 358.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 36.
But it is evidence to go to the jury upon
that point. Bolton f. Hamilton, 2 Watts & S.
(Pa.) 294, 37 Am. Dec. 509. And allowing
a tenant in common to he in exclusive pos-
session and to so receive the rents and profits
of the common property to his own use with-
out accounting for a long time has been held
sufScient for a presumption of an actual
ouster by the jury. Eobidoux v. Cassilegi,
10 Mo. App. 516.
The use of waters owned in common, by
one of the cotenants therein, will be pre-
sumed to be in maintenance of and not ad-
verse to the relationship of cotenancy. Moss
r. Rose, 27 Oreg. 595, 41 Pac. 666, 50 Am. St.
Rep 743. But see Adams f. Manning, 51
Conn. 5. In a suit between cotenants for
damages caused by water escaping from the
common premises, there is no presumption,
between them, of its exclusive occupancy, in
the absence of evidence of such occupancy, as
they are each equally entitled thereto. Moore
V. Goedel, 34 N. Y. 527 [affirmihg 7 Bosw. 591].
7. California. — Plass v. Plass, 121 Cal. 131,
53 Pac. 448.
Connecticut. — Bryan v. Atwater, 5 Day
181, 5 Am. Dec. 136.
Delaware. — See Milbourn v. David, 7
Houst. 209, 30 Atl. 971. .
/Hinois.— Ball v. Palmer, 81 111. 370.
Indiana. — Peden v. Cavins, 134 Ind. 494,
34 N. E. 7, 39 Am. St. Rep. 276; Manchester
t. Doddridge, 3 Ind. 360.
Iowa. — Bader f. Dyer, 106 Iowa 715, 77
N. W. 469, 68 Am. St. Rep. 332; Flock v.
Wyatt, 49 Iowa 466; Burns v. Byrne, 45
Iowa 285.
Kentucky. — Chambers v. Pleak, 6 Dana
426, 32 Am. Deo. 78.
[Ill, C, 3. b, (I)]
Louisiana. — Simon v. Richard, 42 La. Ann.
842, 8 So. 629.
Massachusetts. — Le Favour v. Homan, 3
Allen 354; Parker v. Proprietors Merrimack
River Locks, etc., 3 Mete. 91, 37 Am. Dec.
121; Rickard f. Eickard, 13 Pick. 251.
Michigan. — La Fountain v. Dee, 110 Mich.
347, 68 N. W. 220; Dubois V. Campau, 28
Mich. 304. Compare Campau v. Dubois, 39
Mich. 274.
ilfissoMri.— Warfield v. Lindell, 38 Mo. 661,
90 Am. Dec. 443 ; Warfield v. Lindell, 30 Mo.
272, 77 Am. Dec. 614; Robidoux t. Cassilegi,
10 Mo. App. 516.
New York. — Abrams v. Rhoner, 44 Hun
507; Woolsey v. Morss, 19 Hun 273; Kathan
V. Rockwell, 16 Hun 90; Butler v. Phelps,
17 Wend. 642; Jackson f. Whitbeck, 6 Cow.
632, 16 Am. Dec. 454; Vandyck v. Van
Beuren, 1 Cai. 84.
North Carolina. — Mott v. Carolina Land,
etc., Co., 146 K C. 525, 60 S. E. 423; Whitaker
V. Jenkins, 138 N. C. 476, 51 S. E. 104;
Woodlief V. Woodlief, 136 N. C. 133, 48 S. E.
583; Locklear v. Bullard, 133 N. C. 260, 45
S. E. 580; Page v. Branch, 97 N. C. 97, 1
S. E. 625, 2 Am. St. Rep. 281; Lafoon v.
Shearin, 95 N. C. 391; Neely v. Neely, 79
N. C. 478; Covington v. Stewart, 77 N. C.
148; Day v. Howard, 73 N. C. 1 ; Linker v.
Benson, 67 N. C. 150; Thomas i:. Garvan, 15
N. C. 223, 25 Am. Dec. 708.
0/ito.— Schulte V. Beineka, 6 Ohio S. & C.
PI. Dec. 529, 4 Ohio N. P. 207.
Pennsylvania. — 'Rider v. Maul, 46 Pa. St.
376; Workman r. Guthrie, 29 Pa. St. 495,
72 Am. Dec. 654; Bolton v. Hamilton, 2
Watts & S. 294, 37 Am. Deo. 509; Mehafi'v
f. Dobbs, 9 Watts 363; Frederick v. Gray, 10
Serg. & R. 182; Carothers v. Dunning, 3 Serg.
& R. 373.
South Carolina. — ^Villard v. Robert, 1
Strobh. Eq. 393; Gray v. Givens, Riley Eq.
41, 2 Hill Eq. 511.
Tennessee. — Marr v. Gilliam, 1 Coldw. 488.
Texas. — Gray v. KaufFman, 82 Tex. 65, 17
S. W. 613.
Virginia. — Purcell v. Wilson, 4 Gratt. 16.
West Virginia. — Reed v. Bachman, 61
W. Va. 452, 57 S. E. 769, 123 Am. St. Rep.
996; Logan v. Ward, 58 W. Va. 366, 52 S. E.
398, 5 L. R. A. N. S. 156; Parker v. Brast,
45 W. Va. 399, 32 S. E. 269.
Wisconsin. — Sydnor v. Palmer, 29 Wis.
226.
England. — Culley v. Doe, 11 A. & E. 1008,
9 L. J. Q. B. 283, 3 P. & D. 539, 39 E. C. L.
527; Doe v. Prosser, Cowp. 217, 98 Eng.
Reprint 1062.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 33.
8. Susquehanna, etc., R., etc., Co. v. Quick,
61 Pa. St. 328.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 CycJ 33
may be proven by a claim of exclusive right accompanying possession," as where
the adverse character of the possession of the one is actually known to the others,
or where it is so open and notorious in its hostility and exclusiveness as to put
the others on notice,'" and an entry upon the whole of the land by one tenant in
common who takes exclusive possession of the entire property and receives the
rents, income, and profits thereof, without accounting for any part thereof, or
any demand upon him so to do, under circumstances evidencing an intention
to claim sole ownership, amounts to an actual ouster." If the occupancy or
possession of the common property is permissive or under an agreement, express
or implied, between the cotenants, recognizing the rights of the cotenants not in
possession," or if there be no knowledge of the existence of a cotenancy," or if
9. Alabama,. — Layton t. Campbell, 155
Ala. 220, 46 So. 775, 130 Am. St. Kep. 17;
Ashford f. Asliford, 136 Ala. 631, 34 So. 10,
96 Am. St. Eep. 82; Johnson f. Toulmin, 18
Ala. 50, 52 Am. Dec. 212.
Iowa. — Knowles f. Brown, 69 Iowa 11, 28
N. W. 409.
Kentucky. — <xill v. Fauntleroy, 8 B. Mon.
177.
Moi«e.— Small v. Clifford, 38 Me. 213.
Texas. — Illg v. Garcia, 92 Tex. 251, 47
S. W. 717.
10. Oliver v. Williams, 163 Ala. 376, 50
So. 937; Ashford v. Ashford, 136 Ala. 631,
34 So. 10, 96 Am. St. Rep. 82; Weshgyl v.
Schick, 113 Mich. 22, 71 N. W. 323; Misen-
heimer v. Amos, 221 Mo. 362, 120 S. W. 602;
Cox V. Tompkinson, 39 Wash. 70, 80 Pae.
1005.
11. Alabama. — Johnson v. Toulmdn, 18
Ala. 50, 52 Am. Dec. 212.
California. — Owen v. Morton, 24 Cal. 373.
Missouri. — Nalle v. Parks, 173 Mo. 616,
73 S. W. 596; Warfield v. Lindell, 38 Mo.
561, 90 Am. Dec. 443.
Montana. — Harrigan v. Lynch, 21 Mont.
36, 52 Pac. 642.
New York. — Woolsey v. Morss, 19 Hun
273; Jackson v. Whitbeck, 6 Cow. 632, 16
Am. Dec. 454.
North Carolina. — Dobbins v. Dobbins, 141
N. C. 210, -53 S. E. 870, US Am. St. Eep. 682;
Covington v. Stewart, 77 N. C. 148 ; Black v.
Lindsay, 44 N. C. 467.
Pennsylvania. — Rider v. Maul, 46 Pa. St.
376; Workman v. Guthrie, 29 Pa. St. 495, 72
Am. Dec. 654; Law v. Patterson, 1 Watts
& S. 184; Mehaffy v. Dobbs, 9 Watts 363.
Tennessee. — Marr v. Gilliam, 1 Coldw. 488;
Hubbard v. Wood, 1 Sneed 279.
West Virginia. — Eodgers v. Miller, 55
W. Va. 576, 47 S. E. 354.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 36.
Taking and recording a deed.— If the co-
tenant in possession takes and records a
deed to the whole property from a stranger,
such act will not constitute an ouster un-
less accompanied by a hostile claim of which
the cotenants out of possession have knowl-
edge, and by such acts of possession as are
inconsistent with the continuance of a
cotenancy. Winterburn i\ Chambers, 91
Cal. 170, 27 Pac. 658; Towery v. Henderson,
60 Tex. 291, 297 [citing 3 Washburn Real
Prop. (14th ed.) p. 142]; Holley v. Hawley,
[3]
39 Vt. 525, 94 Am. Dec. 350. But pos-
session of one tenant in common, assert-
ing an exclusive right to the land under a
deed conveying the same to him by specific
description, is adverse to his cotenants hav-
ing notice of the deed by registration. Mor-
gan V. White, 50 Tex. Civ. App. 318, 110
S. W. 491. And possession of a specific part
of a tract of land under a deed to such spe-
cific portion is notice to the occupant's co-
tenants of the larger tract that he is holding
such specific portion adversely to them. Toole
i: Eenfro, (Tex. Civ. App. 1908) 114 S. W.
450.
Operation of a mine without the consent
of the operator's cotenants therein, and ap-
propriation of the proceeds without an ac-
counting thereof, will constitute ouster and
adverse possession. Harrigan v. Lynch, 21
Mont. 36, 52 Pac. 642.
12. Curtis V. Barber, 131 Iowa 400, 108
N. W. 755, 117 Am. S>t. Eep. 425; Old South
Soc. V. Wainwright, 156 Mass. 115, 30 N. E.
476; Winter v. Stevens, 9 Allen (Mass.)
526.
If there are any facts showing the recogni-
tion of a cotenancy, by the tenant in com-
mon claiming adversely, such recognition
should be construed most strongly in favor
of the other cotenant. Van Ormer v. Har-
ley, 102 Iowa 150, 71 N. W. 241; Mead v.
Mead, 82 S. W. 598, 26 Ky. L. Eep. 777;
Puller V. Swensberg, 106 Mich. 305, 64 N. W.
463, 58 Am. St. Eep. 481; Hutson v. Hutson,
139 Mo. 229, 40 S. W. 886 ; Burnett v. Craw-
ford, 50 S. C. 161, 27 S. E. 645; Metz v. Metz,
48 S. C. 472, 26 S. E. 787. But where ad-
verse possession has ripened into title, rec-
ognition of title in the former owner will
not operate to revest title in him. Cole v.
Lester, 48 Misc. (N. Y.) 13, 96 N. Y. Suppl.
67. Thus the title acquired by adverse pos-
session is not affected by a subsequent offer
by the adverse possessor to buy the out-
standing title. Frick v. Simon, 75 Cal. 337,
17 Pac. 439, 7 Am. St. Eep. 177.
13. Van Bibber v. Frazier, 17 Md. 436;
Allen f. Carter, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 175; Wheeler
t\ Taylor, 32 Oreg. 421, 52 Pac. 183, 67 Am.
St. Eep. 540; Johnson v. Burslem, 2 L. J.
Ch. 0. S. 168, 26 Rev. Eep. 212.
But a good title by adverse possession may
be acquired by the grantee of one cotenant
believing that he has acquired the sole owner-
ship of the property by virtue of said grant,
and so occupying said property to the knowl-
[III, C, 3. ta. (I)]
84 [38 Cye.]
TENANCY IN COMMON
damage arising from an unauthorized use of the property may be considered of
but very slight or no consequence, so that it is equivocal whether or not there
was an intention to commit an ouster," such acts will not be regarded as acts
of disseizin. Possession under adverse claim may be proven by parol, although,
under statutes requiring certain formalities in the conveyance of land, such
evidence may not be sufficient to prove title. ^^
(ii) Unauthorized Conveyance of More Than Coten ant's Share
AS Ouster. An unauthorized or unratified sale or conveyance of the whole
property or any specific part thereof by metes and bounds by one tenant in com-
mon, followed by entry by the grantee thereunder and his exclusive possession
thereof, under adverse claim of title to the whole or some specific part by metes
and bounds, amounts to an ouster of the other cotenants/" and such a conveyance
edg« of his cotenant. Laraway v. Larue, 63
Iowa 407, 19 N. W. 242.
14. Ewer v. Livell, 9 Gray (Mass.) 276.
15. Blankenhorn v. Lenox, 123 Iowa 67,
98 N. W. 556; Rand v. Huff, (Kan. App.
1897) 51 Pac. 577 laffirmed in (1898) 53
Pac. 483]; Craig v. Craig, 8 Pa. Cas. 357, 11
Atl. 60.
16. Alabama. — Gulf Red Cedar Lumber
Co. V. Crenshaw, 148 Ala. 343, 42 So. 564;
Fielder t. Childs, 73 Ala. 567.
California. — Frick v. Sinon, 75 Cal. 337,
17 Pac. 439, 17 Am. St. Rep. 177; McLeran
V. Benton, 73 Cal. 329, 14 Pac. 879, 2 Am.
St. Rep. 814; Tully v. TuUy, (1886) 9 Pac.
841; Unger v. Mooney, 63 Cal. 586, 49 Am.
Rep. 100.
Delaware. — Burton v. Morris, 3 Harr. 269.
Georgia. — Bowman v. Owens, 133 Ga. 49,
65 S. E. 156; Morgan v. Mitchell, 104 Ga.
596, 30 S. E. 792; Cain v. Furlow, 47 Ga.
674; Home v. Howell, 46 Ga. 9.
Haieaii. — Kuanalewa v. Kipi, 7 Hawaii
575.
Illinois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Tice, 232
111. 232, 83 N. E. 818; Steele v. Steele, 220
111. 318, 77 N. E. 232; Dawson v. Edwards,
189 111. 60, 59 N. E. 590; Boyd v. Boyd, 176
111. 40, 51 N. E. 782, 68 Am. St. Rep. 169;
Burgett V. Taliaferro, 118 111. 503, 9 N. E.
334; Goeway v. Urig, 18 111. 238.
loioa. — Murray v. Quigley, (1902) 92
S. W. 869; Bader r. Dyer, 106 Iowa 715,
77 N. W. 469, 68 Am. St. Rep. 332; Leach
V. Hall, 95 Iowa 611, 64 N. W. 790; Kinney
1-. Slattery, 51 Iowa 353, 1 N. W. 626. See
also Blankenhorn v. Lenox, 123 Iowa 67, 98
N. W. 566.
Kansas. — Scantlin v. Allison, 32 Kan. 376,
4 Pac. 618.
Kentucky. — Bloom v. Sawyer, 121 Ky. 308,
89 S. W. 204, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 349; Rose v.
Ware, 115 Ky. 420, 74 S. W. 188, 24 Ky. L.
Rep. 2321, 76 S. W. 505, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 947 ;
Adkins V. Whalin, 87 Ky. 153, 7 S. W. 912,
10 Ky. L. Rep. 17, 12 Am. St. Rep. 470;
Greenhill v. Biggs, 85 Ky. 155, 2 S. W. 774,
8 Ky. L. Rep. 825, 7 Am. St. Rep. 579; Gill
V. Fauntleroy, 8 B. Mon. 177 O'Mara v. Lilly,
53 S. W. 516, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 951.
Maine. — Soper v. Lawrence Bros. Co., 98
Me. 268, 56 Atl. 908, 99 Am. St. Rep. 397;
Bird f. Bird, 40 Me. 398.
Maryland. — Merryman v. Cumberland
Paper Co., 98 Md. 223, 56 Atl. 364; Eutter
[III, C, 3, b, (I)]
r. Small, 68 Md. 133, 11 AtL 698, 6 Am. St.
Rep. 434.
Uassaohusetts. — Joyce v. Dver, 189 Mass.
64, 75 N. E. 81, 109 Am. St. Rep. 603; Kit-
tredge v. Proprietors Merrimack River Locks,
etc., 17 Pick. 246, 28 Am. Dee. 296; Bigelow
V. Jones, 10 Pick. 161; Marcy v. Marcy, 6
Mete. 360.
Michigan. — Payment f. Murphy, 141 Mich.
626, 104 N. W. 1111; Brigham v. Reau, 139
Mich. 256, 102 N. W. 845; Fuller v. Swens-
berg, 106 Mich. 305, 64 N. W. 463, 58 Am.
St. Rep. 481; Highstone v. Burdette, 61
Mich. 54, 27 N. W. 852.
Minnesota. — Sanford f. Saflford, 99 Minn.
380, 108 N. W. 819, 116 Am. St. Rep. 432;
Hanson v. Ingwaldson, 77 Minn. 533, 80
N. W. 702, 77 Am. St. Rep. 692.
Mississippi. — Gardiner v. Hinton, 86 Miss.
604, 38 So. 779, 109 Am. St. Rep. 726.
Missouri. — Campbell i. Laclede Gas Light
Co., 84 Mo. 352; Miller v. Bledsoe, 61 Mo.
96 (holding that where one takes possession
under a deed of warranty for the whole
tract, supposing that he takes a fee absolute
and there is nothing to show the contrary,
his act amounts to such a disclaimer as to
entitle him to the benefit of the statutes of
limitations) ; Vasquez v. Ewing, 24 Mo. 31,
66 Am. Dec. 694.
Nebraska. — Carson v. Broady, 56 Nebr. 648,
77 N. W. 80, 71 Am. St. Rep. 691.
New Hampshire. — Thompson v. Gerrish, 57
N. H. 85; Hatch v. Partridge, 35 N. H. 148.
New Jersey. — Foulke v. Bond, 41 N. J. L.
527.
New Mexico. — Neher v. Armijo, 9 N. M.
325, 54 Pac. 236, 11 N. M. 67, 66 Pac. 517.
New York. — Hamerschlag v. Duryea, 172
N". Y. 622, 65 N. E. 1117; Sweetland v. Buell,
164 N. Y. 541, 56 N. E. 663, 79 Am. St. Rep.
676 laflirming 89 Hun 543, 35 N. Y. Suppl.
346] ; Baker v. Oalcwood, 123 N. Y. 16, 25
N. E. 312, 10 L. R. A. 387 ; Wright v. Sad-
dler, 20 N. Y. 320 ; Constantine v. Van Win-
kle, 6 Hill 177; Jackson v. Smith, 13 Johns.
406; Bogardus i\ Trinity Church, 4 Paige
178; Town v. Needham, 3 Paige 545, 24 Am.
Dec. 246.
North Carolina. — Mott r. Carolina Land,
etc., Co., 146 N. C. 525, 60 S. E. 423; Bullin
V. Hancock, 138- N. C. 198, 50 S. E. 621;
Woodlief r. Woodlief, 136 N. C. 133, 48 S. E.
583 ; Shannon r. Lamb, 126 N. C. 38, 35 S. E.
232 ; Roscoe v. John L. Roper Lumber Co., 124
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 35
of the entire estate coupled with possession by the grantee and notice to the other
cotenants, actual or presumed, or open, hostile, exclusive, and notorious acts of
ownership, constitutes adverse possession which may ripen into a valid title by
prescription." It is held in some cases, however, that if a stranger grantee of the
N. C. 42, 32 S. E. 389; Ferguson v. Wright,
113 N. C. 537, 18 S. E. 691; Ward v. Farmer,
92 N. C. 93; Baird v. Baird, 21 N. C. 524, 31
Am. Dee. 399.
Ohio. — Payne f. Cooksey, 8 Ohio S. & C.
PI. Dee. 407, 7 Ohio N. P. 90. See also
Ward V. Ward, 30 Ohio Cir. Ct. 615.
Pennsylvania. — Wilson v. Collishaw, 13 Pa.
St. 276; Culler v. Motzer, 13 Serg. & E. 356,
15 Am. Dec. 604.
South Carolina. — Sudduth V. Sumeral, 61
S. C. 276, 39 S. E. 534, 85 Am. St. Eep. 883;
Odom V. Weathersbee, 26 S. C. 244, 1 S. E.
890; Gray v. Bates, 3 Strobh. 498; Elliott v.
Morris, Harp. Eq. 281.
Tennessee. — Weisinger v. Murphy, 2 Head
674.
Teacas. — Hardy Oil Co. v. Burnham, (Civ.
App. 1909) 124 S. W. 221; Naylor v. Foster,
44 Tex. Civ. App. 599, 99 S. W. 114; Garcia
f. Illg, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 482, 37 S. W. 471;
Byers v. Carll, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 423, 27 S. W.
190; Lewis V. Terrell, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 314,
26 S. W< 754. But see Noble v. Hill, 8 Tex.
Civ. App. 171, 27 S. W. 756.
Yermont. — Leach r. Beattie, 33 Vt. 195;
Roberts v. Morgan, 30 Vt. 319.
Virginia. — Johnston v. Virginia Coal, etc.,
Co., 96 Va. 158, 31 S. E. 85.
West Virginia. — Bennett v. Pierce, 40
S. E. 395, 50 W. Va. 604; Talbot V. Wood-
ford, 48 W. Va. 449, 37 S. E. 580; Parker v.
Brast, 45 W. Va. 399, 32 S. E. 269.
Wisconsin. — McOann v. Welch, 106 Wis.
142, 81 N. W. 996.
United States. — Bradstreet v. Huntington,
5 Pet. 402, 8 L. ed. 170; Elder v. MeCIaskey,
70 Fed. 529, 17 C. C. A. 251 [reversing 47
Fed. 154].
See ¥5 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 39.
Even though the grantee lias knowledge of
the cotenancy, if he takes a conveyance to
the entire common property he is not prima
facie assumed as regarding himself as a co-
tenant where the circumstances are such as
to bring home to the cotenants of the grantor
the adverse character of the grantee's holding,
if said cotenants paid proper attention to
their rights. Kalamakee v. Wharton, 16
Hawaii 228.
The contents of the deed is not the only
matter to be taken into account in deter-
mining the character of the occupancy;
whether it is adverse or not depends upon
the circumstances of the case affected by
the relationship of cotenancy. Sparks v.
Bodensick, 72 Kan. 5, 82 Pao. 463.
Possession by the vendee may be tacked
to that of the vendor to whom he surren-
dered the property through inability to pay
therefor. Talbott v. Woodford, 4S W. Va.
449, 37 S. E. 580.
A mortgage executed by a tenant in com-
mon is not equivalent to a disseizin of the
others, unless the grantee enters claiming
the entire title (Leach v. Hall, 95 Iowa 611,
64 N. W. 790. See also Harriss v. Howard,
126 Ga. 325, 55 S. E. 59), and a tenant in
common having mortgaged his interest, and
being permitted by the grantee to remain in
possession, has a right to occupy in common
with his cotenants or in severalty, and his
occupation in severalty will not amount to a
disseizin of the grantee (Colton f; Smith, 11
Pick. (Mass.) 311, 22 Am. Dec. 375; Scottish-
American Mortg. Co. V. Bunckley, 88 Miss.
641, 41 So. 502, 117 Am. St. Rep. 763), and,
although a tenant in common mortgaged the
whole estate, there was no constructive ouster
where he remained in actual possession and
the jury found, on the evidence, that there
was no intention on his part to oust his co-
tenants (Moore v. Collishaw, 10' Pa. St.
224 ) . Even where a tenant in common mort-
gages the whole property and the mortgagees
enter under a foreclosure, this may not
amount to an ouster of and an adverse pos-
session against the cotenant. Leach v. Beat-
tie, 39 Vt. 195. See also Hodgdon v. Shan-
non, 44 N. H. 572.
An analogous principle obtains as to per-
sonalty only, however, if such transfer
amounts to a denial of the non-vending co-
tenant's rights in the premises or u destruc-
tion of the subject-matter, or is adverse to
such cotenant. Arthur v. Gayle, 38 Ala. 259 ;
Dyckman v. Valiente, 42 N. Y. 549 ; Brown
V. Burnap, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 129, 45 N. Y.
Suppl. 149 ; Worsham f. Vignal, 5 Tex. Civ.
App. 471, 24 S. W. 562; Sanborn v. Morrill,
15 Vt. 700, 40 Am. Dec. 701. The mere sale
of a chattel by one tenant in common is held
not to amount to a conversion unless it
operates altogether to deprive his companion
of his propertv therein. Mayhew v. Herrick,
7 C. B. 229, 13 Jur. 1078, 18 L. J. C. P. 179,
62 E. C. L. 229.
Reconveyance to grantor. — A reconveyance
by one of a number of tenants in common by
a deed purporting to convey the entire tract
to one who had theretofore conveyed said
tract to said tenants in common is not a dis-
seizin. Stevens v. Wait, 112 111. 544. Com-
pare Naylor «?. Foster, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 599,
99 S. W. 114.
17. Eawaii. — Kuanalewa v. Kipi, 7 Hawaii
575.
Indiana. — Grubbs v. Leyendecker, 153 Ind.
348, 53 N. E. 940.
Kentucky. — Bloom r. Sawyer, 121 Ky. 308,
89 S. W. 204, 28 Ky. L. Eep. 349.
Massachusetts. — Joyce v. Dver, 189 Mass.
64, 75 N. E. 81, 109 Am. St. Eep. 603.
Michigan. — Payment v. Murphy, 141 Mich.
626, 104 N. W. nil; Brigham i: Eeau, 139
Mich. 256, 102 N. W. 845.
New York. — Hamershlag v. Duryea, 38
N. Y. App. Div. 130, 56 N. Y. Suppl. 615;
Sweetland v. Buell, 89 Hun 543, 35 N. Y.
[Ill, C, 3, b, (II)]
36 [38 Cye.]
TENANCY IN COMMON
entire tract from one of the tenants in common enters into possession with notice
of the cotenancy he must, in order to acquire the entire title by operation of the
statute of limitations, prove an actual ouster the same as would have been required
of his grantor had he remained in possession.'* A quitclaim deed of the entire
tract is not a disseizin; " nor is the making of a deed for the whole property by a
cotenant to a stranger unless actual adverse possession is taken thereunder,^"
and unless followed by actual entry and adverse possession, an actual ouster is
not constituted as to the devisor's or grantor's cotenants by a conveyance by metes
and bounds.^' Conveyance of the interest of one cotenant is not an ouster of the
other cotenants, even though the grantee so taking said interest did not know
of the other interests, ^^ and where one takes a deed of the interest of one tenant in
common to the land, the other tenants in common therein are thereby disentitled
from maintaimng an action for the recovery of the possession of the land until
said grantee shall have thereafter ousted them.^
(ill) Ouster as Evidenced by Pleadings. Pleadings may evidence an
ouster or adverse holding. Thus a pleaded denial of plaintiff's interest, coupled with
an allegation of title and possession in defendant cotenant, is sufficient proof of
Suppl. 346 [affirmed in 164 N. Y. 541, 58
N. E. 663, 79 Am. St. Eep. 676].
North Carolina. — St. Peter's Church v.
Bragaw, 144 N. C. 126, 56 S. E. 688, 10
L. K. A. N. S. 633.
Virginia. — Johnston v. Virginia Coal, etc.,
Co., 96 Va. 158, 31 S. E. 85.
West Virginia. — Parker r. Brast, 45
W. Va. 399, 32 S. E. 269.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 39.
And see cases cited supra, note 16.
The sole and exclusive occupation of a part
of the granted land by the grantee under a
deed of warranty given by one tenant in
common in possession, the residue remaining
vacant, is an act of disseizin and puts the
grantee into possession of the whole. Thomas
f. Pickering, 13 Me. 337.
If ouster is admitted by the pleadings no
evidence of holding by virtue of the tenancy
in common is admissible. Billings v. Gibbs,
55 Me. 238, 92 Am. Dec. 587. And see infra,
note 24 et seq.
18. California. — Packard v. Johnson, 51
Cal. 545.
Indiana. — Sims v. Dame, 113 Ind. 127, 15
N. E. 217.
Iowa. — ■ Sorenson f. Davis, 83 Iowa 405, 49
N. W. 10O4.
New York. — Hamershlag v. Duryea, 38
N. Y. App. Div. 130, 56 N. Y. Suppl. 615.
North Carolina. — Eoscoe r. John L. Roper
Lumber Co., 124 N. C. 42, 32 S. E. 389.
Texas. — Kirby i: Hayden, 44 Tex. Civ.
App. 207, 99' S. W. 746.
Virginia. — Buchanan v. King, 22 Gratt.
414.
West Virginia. — McNeeley v. South Penn
Oil Co., 52 W. Va. 616, 44 S. E. 508, 62
L. R. A. 562.
Where one holding the entire title for life
as devisee of his deceased sole cotenant, re-
mainder to his heirs, undertook to convey
the whole of the estate to one of his heirs
only, the grantee will not be allowed in equity
to hold adversely to the other heirs. Hicks
V. Bullock, 96 N. C. 164, 1 S. E. 629.
[Ill C, 3, b, (ll)]
19. Moore t: Antill, 53 Iowa 612, 6 N. W.
14; Hume v. Long, 53 Iowa 299, 5 N. W.
193.
20. Inglis V. Webb, 117 Ala. 387, 23 So.
125; Garcia f. Illg, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 482,
37 S. W. 471; Parker v. Brast, 45 W. Va.
399, 32 S. E. 269; Saladin v. Kraayvanger,
96 Wis. 180, 70 N. W. 1113. But see Neher
V. Armijo, 9 N. M. 325, 54 Pac. 236, 11 N. M.
67, 66 Pac. 517.
Evidence of intention. — Acceptance of a
deed asserting title to the whole property
furnishes evidence of the intention to make
entry adversely. Larman v. Huey, 13
B. Mon. (Ky.) 436.
The registration of such a deed is not a
disseizin. Hardee v. Weathington, 130
N. C. 91, 40 S. E. 855.
The mere assertion of the entire title by a
purchaser from one tenant in common with-
out adverse possession and without knowledge
of such claim on the part of the other co-
tenants does not amount to an ouster of the
latter. New York, etc., Land Co. i: Hyland,
8 Tex. Civ. App. 601, 28 S. W. 206.
Where the cotenancy is recognized by the
grantee under a deed from less than the
whole number of cotenants to the entire land
or a specific part thereof described by metes
and bounds, the occupancy and exclusive en-
joyment of the entire land is not an ouster
or a disseizin. Price v. Hall, 140 Ind. 314,
39 N. E. 941, 49 Am. St. Rep. 196; Van
Ormier v. Harley, 102 Iowa 150, 71 K W.
241. A grantee of one- of two cotenants of
land cannot maintain ejectment against the
other cotenant, the cotenants having recog-
nized each other's possession. Tansman v.
Faris, 59 Cal. 663.
21. Phillips V. Tudor, 10 Gray (Mass.) 78,
69 Am. Dec. 306; Porter v. Hill, 9 Mass. 34,
6 Am. Dec. 22; Hannon r. Hannah, 9 Gratt.
(Va.) 146. Compare Weisinger v. Murphv,
2 Head (Tenn.) 674.
22. Curtis v. Barber, 131 Iowa 400, 108
N. W. 755, 117 Am. St. Rep. 425.
23. House v. Fuller, 13 Vt. 165, 37 Am.
Dec. 580.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cye.j 37
ouster,^* and under statutes prescribing that general issue pleas or other pleas to the
merits shall be taken as admission of defendant being in possession of the premises
sued for, for the purposes of the action, it is held that the pleas of not guilty and stat-
ute of limitations are equivalent to an ouster, ^^ and refusal to recognize any title in
plaintiff and a denial of such title by defendant in his answer may be sufficient
ouster to maintain suit even under a statute requiring a proof of actual ouster.^"
An ouster, merely evidenced by the pleadings, relates to the time of the filing of
the pleadings and not to the time alleged in such pleadings to be the time when
adverse possession began,^' and if there be no proof of ouster except as appears
in the pleadings, plaintiff can recover damages only from the date of the institu-
tion of the suit.^* But on the other hand it is held that where a statute requires
proof of an actual ouster, proof of demandant's title as tenant in common will
not entitle him to a judgment where defendant has pleaded nul disseizin.^* It
has been held that if cotenancy is denied there is no necessity for any stronger
proof of ouster than against any other party.'"
(iv) Notice of Adverse Holding. Notice of adverse holding need not
be actual, direct, formal, verbal, or written notice.^' It may be inferred where
the possession is of such a hostile and imequivocal character and is so openly
manifested that a man of ordinary diligence would discover it; ^ and it may even
be constructive notice;^' and notice of an adverse holding may be by pleadings
in an appropriate action between the cotenants; but such notice may not arise
24. Arkansas. — Brewer v. Keller, 42 Ark.
289.
Maine. — Billings v. Gibbs, 65 Me. 238, 92
Am. Dec. 587. But see Cutis v. King, 5 Me.
482.
Michigan. — Fenton v. Miller, 108 Mich.
246, 65 N. W. 966.
New Hampshire. — Lyford r. Thurston, 16
N. H. 399.
New York. — Peterson v. De Baum, 36 N. Y.
App. Div. 259', 55 N. Y. Suppl. 249. But
see Oilman v. Oilman, 111 N". Y. 265, 18 K E.
849.
Compare Eawson v. Morse, 4 Pick. (Mass.)
127.
25. Noble 'v. McFarland, 61 111. 226; Ly-
ford V. Thurston, 16 N. H. 399; St. Louis,
etc., E. Co. V. Prather, 75 Tex. 53, 12 S. W.
969.
26. Minton v. Steele, 125 Mo. 181, 28 S. W.
746; Jordan v. Surghnor, 107 Mo. 620, 17
S. W. 1009, answer admitting withholding
possession from plaintiff.
If defendant merely denies plaintiff's title
he admits ouster; if he does not deny plain-
tiff's title it should be admitted, and ouster
should be denied. Withrow v. Biggerstaff, 82
N. C. 82.
27. Fenton v. Miller, 108 Mich. 246, 65
N. W. 966.
The implied admission does not carry ad-
mission of the date of ouster alleged in the
petition. La Riviere v. La Eiviere, 77 Mo.
512.
28. Miller v. Myers, 46 Cal. 535; Huff v.
McDonald, 22 Ga. 131, 68 Am. Dec. 487.
29. Outts V. King, 5 Me. 482 ; Fenton v.
Miller, 94 Mich. 204, 53 N. W. 957; Oilman
V. Oilman, 111 N. Y. 265, 18 N. E. 849.
An answer denying knowledge or informa-
tion sufficient to form a belief as to plaintiff's
interest and an allegation of title and pos-
session in defendant cotenant amounts to
proof of ouster, within the provision of a
statute requiring such proof. Peterson v. De
Baun, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 259, 55 N. Y.
Suppl. 249.
30. Peterson 1). Laik, 24 Mo. 541, 69 Am.
Dec. 441; Leech v. Leech, 24 U. C. Q. B.
321.
Proof of finding of adverse holding for a
less period than that alleged is sufficient proof
of ouster. XJrant v. Paddock, 30 Oreg. 8J2,
47 Pac. 712.
31. California. — Unger v. Mooney, 63 Cal.
686, 49 Am. Eep. 100.
Kentucky. — Greenhill v. Biggs, 85 Ky. 155,
2 S. W. 774, 8. Ky. L. Eep. 825, 7 Am. St. Eep.
579.
Missouri. — Peck v. Lockridge, 97 Mo. 543,
11 S. W. 246.
Pennsylvania. — Lodge v. Patterson, 3 Watts
74, 27 Am. Dec. 335.
United States. — Elder v. McOlaskey, 70
Fed. 529', 17 C. C. A. 251 [reversing 47 Fed.
154].
See 45 Cemt. Dig. tit. "Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 49.
32. Hutson «. Hutson, 139 Mo. 229, 40
S. W. 886; Wheeler v. Taylor, 32 Oreg. 421,
52 Pac. 183, 67 Am. St. Eep. 540; Holley v.
Hawley, 39 Vt. 625, 94 Am. Dec. 350.
Slight acts may not -be sufficient to give
such notice. Courtner v. Etheredge, 149 Ala.
78, 43 So. 368; Curtis V. Barber, 131 Iowa
400, 108 N. W. 755, 117 Am. St. Rep.
425.
33. Ames v. Howes, 13 Ida. 756, 93 Pac.
35; McCrum v. MoCrum, 36 Ind. App. 636,
76 N. E. 415 ; Payne v. Cooksey, 8 Ohio S. &
C. PI. Dec. 407, 7 Ohio N. P. 90; Puckett v.
McDaniel, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 630, 28 S. W.
360.
The recording of a mortgage of the whole
land by one cotenant is not such constructive
notice. Leach f. Beattie, 33 Vt. 195.
[Ill, C, 3, b, (iv)]
38 [38 Cyc]
TENANCY IN COMMON
from pleadings in a case in which controverted questions of title covild not be
fully determined.^*
e. Tacking Possession. Possession by those claiming under a disseizing ten-
ant in common may be tacked to the disseizor's possession so as to perfect title
as against the cotenants disseized,'^ and if the adverse possession has ripened into
a title, recognition of the former owner wiU not operate to revest title in him.^'
But where a person, having acquired a specific interest in a particular tract of
land, has taken possession of the whole, with a view of acquiring the additional
interest, merely by holding possession of it under a claim of ownership, he does
not convey such possession to a vendee, to whom he sells the interest described,
and such vendee caimot, for the purpose of aidmg himself in the acqviisition by
prescription of property not included in his title, add his vendor's possession to his
own, there being no privity between him and his vendor in that respect.^' Where there
are several tenants in common of land of whom aU but one are in possession and
before the statutory period has run the latter acquires another imdivided share
from or under one of those in possession, the statute rims as to both shares from
the time the last one was acquired.^'
d. Waiver or Abandonment by Disseizor; Survivorship. After the com-
mencement of the running of the statute, or after the expiration of the term of
the respective statutes of limitations and the vesting of rights thereimder, such
benefits cannot be lost except by some act of abandonment.^* Where, however,
a tenant in common in possession recognizes his cotenants' right in the land, a
presiunption arises that he then ceases to be an adverse holder, no matter how
hostile his possession may previously have been, and the recognition has the
effect to put all the tenants in common in seizin and possession of their respective
shares,'"' and a presumption of an adverse holding may be rebutted by evidence
34. Donason r. Barbero, 230 111. 138, 82
K. E. 620; Tarplee v. Sonn, 109 N. Y. App.
Div. 241, 96 N. Y. Suppl. 6.
35. Cole I. Lester, 48 Misc. (X. Y.) 13,
96 N. Y. Suppl. 67; \Yheeler f. Taylor, 32
Oreg. 421, 52 Pac. 183, 67 Am. St. Rep. 540,
holding that where one of several cotenants
is given a deed of the land from the tenant
in possession who was holding adversely to
the others, all believing that the latter was
the sole owner, the subsequent possession of
the grantee under his deed might be tacked
to the possession of his grantor so as to
create a bar by limitation against the re-
maining cotenants. See also Wilson v. Wil-
liams, 52 Miss. 487.
36. Cole t. Lester, 48 Misc. (N. Y.) 13,
96 N. Y. Suppl. 67.
37. Sibley v. Pierson, 125 La. 478, 51 So.
502.
38. Hill V. Ashbridge, 20 Ont. App.
44.
39. Home v. Home, 38 Nova Scotia 404.
The mere acceptance of a deed by the one
so entitled to an alleged interest of one of
the tenants in common is not such an act of
abandonment. York r. Hutcheson, 37 Tex.
Civ. App. 367, 83 S. W. 895.
40. Sparks f. Bodensick, 72 Kan. 5, 82 Pac.
463; Venable f. Beauchamp, 3 Dana (Ky.)
321, 28 Am. Dec. 74; Alsobrook v. Eggleston,
69 Miss. 833, 13 So. 850; Illg r. Garcia, 92
Tex. 251, 47 S. W. 717; House v. Williams,
16 Tex. Civ. App. 122, 40 S. W. 414.
He cannot occupy inconsistent positions in
relation to his cotenants, such as recognizing
the interests of some of them and claiming
[III, C. 3, b, (IV)]
that he has ousted others of them. Schoon-
over V. Tyner, 72 Kan. 475, 84 Pac. 124.
The mere fact that a dispossessed cotenant
resided as a. member of the family of his dis-
seizing cotenant did not affect the adverse pos-
session. Feliz t. Feliz, 105 Cal. 1, 38 Pac. 521.
Purchase of title. — Where a tenant in pos-
session of property claiming adversely to the
world buys title thereto to quiet his own
title, such purchase does not constitute a
waiver or abandonment of his disseizin or of
that of those claiming with him as coten-
ants, provided such purchase does not carry
with it a recognition of the disseized coten-
ancy. Uuger f. Mooney, 63 Cal. 586, 49 Am.
Eep. 100; Barr f. Chapman, 11 Ohio Dec.
(Reprint) 862, 30 Cine. L. Bui. 264. And
see infra. III, D, 2. The presumption arising
from the acceptance of a conveyance of the
original title to that portion may be over-
come by evidence that the possession he then
had continued under the claim of an ex-
clusive right, and with the intention, to ex-
clude other owners of the original title, al-
though cotenants, from any right or interest
therein. Cook v. Clinton, 64 Mich. 309, 31
N. W. 317, 8 Am. St. Rep. 816. The pur-
chase of the undivided interest of one of
several co-claimants by one in adverse pos-
session, merely to protect himself against
litigation, as is known to the other claimants,
is not a recognition of the cotenancy, nor
does the purchaser hold as tenant in common
with such claimants. Cooper v. Great Falls
Cotton Mills Co., 94 Tenn. 588, 30 S. W.
353. See also Frick v. Simon, 75 Cal. 337,
17 Pac. 439, 7 Am. St. Rep. 177.
TENANCY TN COMMON
[38 Cye.] 39
of a subsequent acknowledgment of a cotenancy in the premises." But after
abandonment of the cotenancy, or perfection of title by adverse possession, such
evidence may not be sufficient to rebut such presumption arising from a long-
continued, notorious, and peaceable occupation under a new purchase.*^ If any
disseizors less than the whole number in possession abandon the land, the abandon-
ment inures to the benefit of those remaining in possession and not of the disseizees,*^
and a sole survivor of joint disseizors in common entitled to the disseized land
becomes solely entitled thereto/*
e. Ouster and Adverse Possession as Question of Law or Fact. The question
as to whether or not undisputed acts of tenants in common amounted to a disseizin
of their cotenants so as to start the operation of the statute of limitations is held
to be a question for the court and not for the jury,'"' and the rule is the same as
to a question involving adverse possession where the elements going to make
up adverse possession are not in evidence.'"' Where the facts in relation to an
ouster are conflicting and the finding of some of them would justify the presump-
tion of an ouster they are properly submitted to a jury,*' so as to the lapse of
time, or what constitutes reasonable time.*' Whether a lease, proven to be
executed with the knowledge of a tenant in common of the demised property,
was executed adversely or merely for the purposes of convenience of the parties
is properly submitted to a jury, and if the evidence on that point is conflicting
the finding of the jury thereon is conclusive.*"
A requested instruction as to what -would
constitute a break in the continuity of pos-
session which fails to state the length of
time or nature of sueli possession, whether
permissive or otherwise, is properly refused.
Ehea u. Craig, 141 N. C. 602, 54 S. E. 408.
41. Thornton v. York Bank, 45 Me. 158;
Garcia v. Illg, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 482, 37
S. W. 471.
Recognition of the cotenancy by the bring-
ing of an action in ejectment in the joint
names of the cotenants, and entry of judg-
ment therein, interrupts the running of the
statutes of limitations in favor of the ten-
ant in possession. Handley v. Archibald, 30
Can. Sup. Ct. 130.
42. Johnson v. Toulmin, 18 Ala. 50, 52 Am.
Dee. 212; Potter v. Herring, 57 Mo. 184;
Cole f. Lester, 48 Misc. (N. Y.) 13, 96 N. Y.
Suppl. 67. See also Frick i-. Simon, 75 Cal.
337, 17 Pac. 439, 7 Am. St. Eep. 177.
43. Allen v. Holton, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 458.
44. Kauhikoa t". Hobron, 5 Hawaii 491;
Allen %•. Holton, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 458.
It is not competent for the disseizors to
qualify their joint tenancy and limit it to a
tenancy in common to the prejudice of the
disseizee. Putney f. Dresser, 2 Mete. (Mass.)
583.
45. Hendricks v. Musgrove, 183 Mo. 300,
81 S. W. 1265.
46. Inglis V. W«bb, 117 Ala. 387, 23 So.
125; Morris f. Davis, 75 Ga. 169.
47. Alaiama. — Hamby v. Folsam, 148 Ala.
221, 42 So. 648.
Arkansas. — Trapnall v. Hill, 31 Ark.
345.
Iowa. — Knowles v. Brown, 69 Iowa 11, 28
N. W. 409.
Kentucky. — Gill v. Fauntleroy, 8 B. Mon.
177. _
Michigan. — Patrick v. Kalamazoo Y. M.
C. A., 120 Mich. 185, 79 N. W. 208; La Foun-
tain V. Dee, 110 Mich. 347, 63 N. W. 220;
Fenton v. Miller, 94 Mich. 204, 53 N. W.
987 ; Highstone v. Burdette, 54 Mich. 329, 20
N. W. 64.
Mississippi. — Corbin v. Cannon, 31 Miss.
570; Harmon v. James, 7 Sm. & M. Ill, 45
Am. Dec. 296.
Missouri. — Warfield v. Lindell, 38 Mo. 561,
90 Am. Dec. 443.
Nebraska. — Beall r. McMenemy, 63 Nebr.
70, 88 N. W. 134, 93 Am. St. Rep. 427.
New York.— Clark v. Crego, 47 Barb. 599 ;
Jackson v. Whitbeck, 6 Cow. 632, 16 Am.
Dec. 454.
North Carolina. — Johnson v. Swain, 44
N. C. 335.
Pennsylvania. — Keyser v. Evans, 30 Pa. St.
507; Workman v. Guthrie, 29 Pa. St. 495,
72 Am. Dec. 654; Blackmore v. Gregg, 2
Watts & S. 182; Craig v. Craig, 8 Pa. Cas.
257, U Atl. 60.
Tennessee. — Marr f. Gilliam, 1 Coldw. 488.
Virginia. — Purcell t'. Wilson, 4 Gratt. 16.
England. — -Doe v. Prosser, Cowp. 217, 98
Eng. Reprint 1052 ; Peaceable v. Read, 1 East
568, 102 Eng. Reprint 220.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 52.
Whether the relationship of landlord and
tenant exists between cotenants is a question
of fact for the jury. Boley f. Barutio, 24 111.
App. 515 [affirmed in 120 111. 192, 11 X. E.
393].
48. Ela V. Ela, 70 N. H. 163, 47 Atl. 414;
Burnett v. Crawford, 50 S. C. 161, 27 S. E.
645.
49. Comstock v. Eastwood, 108 Mo. 41, 18
S. W. 39.
So as to the question of tenancy under an
agreement, where the agreement is so ambigu-
ous in itself that parol testimony mus.t be
had in relation thereto. Bromley r. Miles, 51
N. Y. App. Div. 95, 64 N. Y. Suppl. 353.
[Ill, C, S, e]
40 [38 Cye.J
TENANCY IN COMMON
f. Action to Determine Validity of Adverse Claim. A tenant in common is
allowed, imder statute, in some jurisdictions, to maintain an action for the determi-
nation of the validity of an adverse claim of title by a cotenant.*"
D. Purchase or Discharge of Outstanding Interest, Title, or Claim —
1. Outstanding Interests, Title, or Claims in General — a. Right to Purchase
or Discharge and Effect Thereof. A tenant in common has the right to relieve the
common property from a lien or encumbrance,^^ and may make a valid tender of pay-
ment of the whole mortgage debt on behalf of his cotenants,^^ and acts of this nature
done in relation to the general interest in the whole common property are presumed
to have been done bona fide for the common benefit,^^ and generally a purchase
by a cotenant of an outstanding title being presumed to be for the benefit of
all the parties in interest is not void, passing title subject to the rights of other
cotenants.^* But one tenant in common will not be permitted to inequitably
acquire title to the common property, solely for his own benefit or to the exclusion
of his cotenants,^^ the general rule being that the purchase or extinguishment of
an outstanding title to, encumbrance upon, or claim against the common property
by one tenant in common inures to the benefit of all the coowners,^" who may
50. See the statutes of the several states.
And see Eoss v. Heintzen, 36 Cal. 313; Elliott
V. Frakes, 71 Ind. 412; Gilmer v. Beauchamp,
40 Tex. Civ. App. 125, 87 S. W. 907.
51. Simonson v. Lauck, 105 N. Y. App.
Div. 82, 93 N. Y. Suppl. 965 (holding that
as each tenant in common has the right to
remove an encumbrance from the common
property, a mortgagee refusing a tender of
the full amount due on the mortgage on be-
half of a cotenant in the mortgaged property
and an assignment to such cotenant cannot
complain that the other cotenants, not ob-
jecting to the foreclosure of said mortgage,
did not receive notice of a motion for an
order of an assignment of the mortgage and
the discontinuance of the action) ; Green v.
Walker, 22 R. I. 14, 45 Atl. 742; Deavitt v.
Ring, 73 Vt. 298, 50 Atl. 1066.
52. Gentry r. Gentry, 1 Sneed (Tenn.) 87,
60 Am. Dee. 137.
But the mortgagee cannot be compelled to
take part of the mortgage debt for the re-
lease of a moietv. Frost v. Frost, 3 Sandf.
Ch. (N. Y.) 188."
53. Jester v. Davis, 109 N. C. 458, 13 S. E.
90'8; Hampton v. Wheeler, 99 K. C. 222, 6
S. E. 236 ; Breden V. McLaurin, 98 N. C. 307,
4 S. E. 136; Page v. Branch, 97 N. C. 97, 1
S. E. 625, 2 Am. St. Rep. 281 ; Hicks v. Bul-
lock, 96 N. C. 164, 1 S. E. 629; Richards v.
Richards, 31 Pa. Super. Ct. 509; Weaver f.
Akin, 48 W. Va. 456, 37 S. E. 600; Hall v.
Clark, 44 W. Va. 659, 30 S. E. 216.
54. Morrison v. Roehl, 215 Mo. 545, 114
S. W. 981.
55. California. — Mandeville v. Solomon, 39
Cal. 125.
Michigan. — Ream v. Robinson, 128 Mich.
92, 87 N. W. 115.
Minnesota. — Oliver v. Hedderlv, 32 Minn.
455, 21 N. W. 478.
ffew) Yort-.— Collins v. Collins, 13 K Y.
Suppl. 28 [affirmed in 131 N. Y. 648, 30 N. E.
863].
Texas. — Duke r. Reed, 64 Tex. 705.
Washington. — Cedar Canyon Consol. Min.
Co. V. Yarwood, 27 Wash. 271, 67 Pac. 749,
[III, C, 3, f]
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 55 et seq.
Redemption. — The purchase of mortgaged
premises sold under the mortgage for the pur-
pose of eflfecting a redemption after an un-
derstanding between the cotenants that one
of them should make such redemption and
take to himself an assignment of the pur-
chaser's certificate of sale is treated in equity
as a redemption, and as not divesting the
non-purchasing cotenant of his estate. Ed-
monds f. Mounsey, 15 Ind. App. 399, 44 N. E.
196; Holterhoff t. Mead, 36 Minn. 42, 29
iSr. W. 675.
56. Alabama. — Courtner v. Etheredge, 149
Ala. 78, 43 So. 368; Jones v. Matkin, 118 Ala.
341, 24 So. 242.
Arkansas. — Clements f. Gates, 49' Ark. 242,
4 S. W. 776.
California. — Stevenson v. Boyd, 153 Cal.
630, 96 Pac. 284, 19 L. R. A. N. S. 525;
Calkins r. Steinbach, 66 Cal. 117, 4 Pac.
1103; Olney i: Sawyer, 54 Cal. 379; Mande-
ville V. Solomon, 39 Cal. 125. Compare Tully
V. Tully, ( 1886 ) 9 Pac. 841.
Colorado. — Mills r. Hart, 24 Colo. 505, 52
Pac. 680, 65 Am. St. Rep. 241 (patent to
mineral land) ; Hodgson r. Fowler, 24 Colo.
278, 50 Pac. 1034 [reversing 7 Colo. App. 378,
43 Pac. 462]; Fisher f. Seymour, 23 Colo.
542, 49 Pac. 30. But see Qillett v. Gaffney, 3
Colo. 351.
Illinois. — Carpenter v. Fletcher, 239 111.
440, 88 N. E. 162 ; Boyd r. Boyd, 176 111. 40,
51 N. E. 782, 68 Am. St. Rep. 169; Mc-
Ohesney f. White, 140 111. 330, 29 N. E. 709;
Burgett r. Taliaferro, 118 111. 503, 9 N. E.
334 ; Montague v. Selb, 106 111. 49 ; Bracken
V. Cooper, 80 111. 221; Busch f. Huston, 75
111. 343; Titsworth v. Stout, 49 111. 78, 95
Am. Dec. 577; Phelps v. Eeeder, 39 111. 172;
Ott V. Flinapach, 143 111. App. 61 ; Mauzey v.
Dazey, 114 111. App. 652. See also Fischer
V. Eslaman, 68 111. 78.
/mdiamo.— Ryason r. Dunten, 164 Ind. 86,
73 N. E. 74; McPheeters r. Wright, 124 Ind
560, 24 N. E. 734, 9 L. R. A. 176 ; Moon v.
Jennings, 119 Ind. 130, 20 N. E. 748, 21 N. E,
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cye.J 41
within a reasonable time elect to avail themselves of the benefit of the purchase
of the outstanding interest or conflicting claim or the removal of the encumbrance
471, 12 Am. St. Rep. 383; Elston v. Piggott,
94 Ind. 14; Wilson V. Peelle, 78 Ind. 384;
Bender v. Stewart, 75 Ind. 88 ; Ladd v. Kuhn,
27 Ind. App. 535, 61 N. E. 747.
Zoiud.— Shell V. Walker, 54 Iowa 386, 6
N. W. 581; Fallon v. Chideater, 46 Iowa 588,
26 Am. Eep. 164; Weare v. Van Meter, 42
Iowa 128, 20 Am. Rep. 616. But see Alex-
ander V. Sully, 50 Iowa 192 ; Sullivan v. M&-
Lenans, 2 Iowa 437, 65 Am. Dec. 780.
Kentucky. — Gossom v. Donaldson, 18
B. Men. 230, 68 Am. Dec. 723; Thruaton v.
Masterson, 9 Dana 228; Lee v. Fox, 6 Dana
171 ; Venable v. Beauchamp, 3 Dana 321, 28.
Am. Dec. 74. Compare Larman v. Hney, 13
B. Mon. 436.
Maine.— Coburn v. Page, 105 Me. 458, 74
Atl. 1026, 134 Am. St. Rep. 575 ; Vaughan v.
Bacon, 15 Me. 455, 33 Am. Dec. 628 (holding
that the acceptance by one of several tenants
in common of a relinquishment and yielding
up by disseizor of all of said tenant's right,
seizin, possession, and betterments which
the disseizor had in and to the proportion
of that tenant in said premises, inures to
the benefit of all the tenants respectively, and
prevents the operation of the statute of limi-
tations prior to such acceptance) ; Williams
V. Gray, 3 Me. 207, 14 Am. Dec. 234.
Michigan. — -Nowlen v. Hall, 128 Mich. 274,
87 N. W. 222; Retan v. Sherwood, 120 Mich.
496, 79 N. W. 692.
Minnesota. — Hoyt v. Lightbody, 98 Minn.
189, 108 N. W. 843, 116 Am. St. Rep. 358.
Mississippi. — Beaman v. Beaman, 90 Miss.
762, 44 So. 987; Wyatt v. Wyatt, 81 Miss.
219, 32 So. 317; Wise v. Hyatt, 68 Miss. 714,
10 So. 37 ; Hignite v. Hignite, 65 Miss. 447, 4
So. 345, 7 Am. St. Rep. 673.
Missouri. — ^Kohle v. Hobson, 215 Mo. 213,
114 S. W. 952; Mahoney v. Nevins, 190 Mo.
360, 88 S. W. 731; Hinters v. Hinters, 114
Mo. 26, 21 S. W. 456; Dillinger v. Kelley, 84
Mo. 561; Paul v. Fulton, 25 Mo. 156; Jones
v. Stanton, 11 Mo. 433.
Nebraska. — Carson v. Broady, 56 Nebr.
648, 77 N. W. 80, 71 Am. St. Rep. 691; Brown
V. Homan, 1 Nebr. 448.
Nevada. — Boskowitz v. Davis, 12 Nev. 446.
New Jersey. — Ennis v. Hutchinson, 30 N. J.
Eq. 110.
New YorTc. — Knolls v. Barnhart, 71 N. Y.
474; Swinburne v. Swinburne, 28 N. Y. 568;
Graham v. Laddington, 19 Hun 246; Hackett
V. Patterson, 16 N. Y. Suppl. 170 (holding
that the renewal of the lease for a safety
vault by a cotenant to the exclusion of his
cotenants therein inured to the beneiit of
said cotenants) ; Jackson v. Creal, 13 Johns.
116; Van Home v. Fonda, 5 Johns. Ch. 409;
Burrell v. Bull, 3 Sandf. Ch. 15. See also
Carpenter f. Carpenter, 131 N. Y. 101, 29
N. E. 1013, 27 Am. St. Rep. 569. Compare
Streeter v. Shultz, 45 Hun 406 [affirmed in
127 N. Y. 652, 27 N. E. 857].
North Carolina. — Threadgill tr. Eedwine, 97
N. C. 241, 2 S. E. 526 ; Page v. Branch, 97
N. C. 97, 2 S. E. 625, 2 Am. St. Eep. 281;
Grim v. Wicker, 80 N. C. 343 ; Pitt v. Petway,
34 N. C. 69; Saunders v. Gatlin, 21 N. C.
86.
Oregon. — Crawford v. O'Connell, 39 Greg.
153, 64 Pac. 656; Dray v. Dray, 21 Greg. 59,
27 Pac. 223.
Pennsylvania. — Whitehead v. Jones, 197
Pa. St. 511, 47 Atl. 978; Enyard v. Enyard,
190 Pa. St. 114, 42 Atl. 526, 70 Am. St. Rep.
623; McGranighan v. McGranighan, 186 Pa.
St. 340, 39 Atl. 951; Davis f. King, 87 Pa.
St. 261; Duff «. Wilson, 72 Pa. St. 442; Keller
V. Auble, 58 Pa. St. 410, 98 Am. Dec. 297;
Maul V. Rider, 51 Pa. St. 337; Lloyd v.
Lynch, 28 Pa. St. 419, 70 Am. Dec. 137 ;
Weaver v. Wible, 25 Pa. St. 270, 64 Am. Dec.
696; Ligget v. Bechtol [cited in Smiley v.
Dixon, 1 Penr. & W. 439, 440] ; Berg v. Mc-
LaflFerty, 9 Pa. Cas. 135, 12 Atl. 460; Rich-
ards V. Richards, 31 Pa. Super. Ct. 509;
McGranighan v. McGranighan, 6 Pa. Dist.
33, 19 Pa. Co. Ct. 75 ; Hite v. Hite, 21 Pa.
Co. Ct. 97.
South Dakota. — i Johnson v. Brauch, 9 S. D.
116, 68 N. W. 173, 62 Am. St. Rep. 857.
Tennessee. — Tisdale v. Tisdale, 2 Sneed
596, 64 Am. Dec. 775; Gentry v. Gentry, 2
Sneed 87, 60 Am. Dec. 137 ; Hall v. Calvert,
(Ch. App. 1897) 46 S. W. 1120.
Texas. — Anderson f. Clauch, (1887) 6
S. W. 760 ; Rippetoe v. Dwyer, 49 Tex. 498.
Vermont. — House v. Fuller, 13 Vt. 165, 37
Am. Dec. 680; Braintree v. Battles, 6 Vt. 396.
Virginia. — Buchanan v. King, 22 Gratt.
414.
Washington. — Cedar Canyon Consol. Min.
Co. V. Yarwood, 27 Wash. 271, 67 Pac. 749,
91 Am. St. Eep. 841. But see Burnett v.
Ewing, 39 Wash. 45, 80 Pac. 855.
West Virginia. — Flat Top Grocery Co. v.
Bailey, 62 W. Va. 84, 57 S. E. 302 ; Reed v.
Bachman, 61 W. Va. 452, 67 S. E. 769, 123
Am. St. Rep. 996 ; Weaver v. Akin, 48 W. Va.
456, 37 S. E. 600; Gilchrist f. Beswick, 33
W. Va. 168, 10 S. E. 371.
Wisconsin. — Rountree v. Denson, 59 Wis.
622, 18 N. W. 618.
United States. — Rothwell V. Dewees, 2
Black 613, 17 L. ed. 309; Flagg u. Mann, 9
Fed. Cas. No. 4,847, 2 Sumn. 486 ; Russell V.
Beebe, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,153, Hempst. 704.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 53 et seq.
Mines and wells. — The purchase of a con-
flicting or outstanding claim in relation to a
mine or well generally inures to the benefit
of the cotenants. Mills v. Hart, 24 Colo. 505,
52 Pac. 680, 65 Am. St. Rep. 241 ; Franklin
Min. Co. V. O'Brien, 22 Colo. 129, 43 Pac.
1016, 55 Am. St. Rep. 118; Cedar Canyon
Consol. Min. Co. v. Yarwood, 27 Wash. 271,
67 Pac. 749, 91 Am. St. Rep. 841. Legal in-
terest on the amount of money invested has
been held to be proper compensation for the
use of the land purchased. Cecil v. Clark, 49
W. Va. 459, 39' S. E. 202.
Mortgage sale. — The purchase, by a tenant
in common, of the common property at a
[III, D, 1, a]
42 [38 Cyc]
TENAWOY IN COMMON
from the common property.^' Similarly if by any fraudiilent means the title
to property is taken or acquired by one of several persons who are entitled to its
ownership in common, he, upon timely and' proper complaint of the injured
persons, wiU be declared to hold the title as trustee for their benefit, or the
title will be declared to be in all of them in common; ^* and where a third person
foreclosure sale, or the purchase of the equity
of redemption by a tenant in common claim-
ing under a mortgagee, inures to the benefit
of the cotenants therein on their timely elec-
tion. Hodgson V. Fowler, 24 Colo. 278, 50
Pac. 1034 ^reversing 7 Colo. App. 378, 43
Pac. 462]; Bracken v. Cooper, 80 111. 221;
Wyatt V. Wyatt, 81 Miss. 21S, 32 So. 317;
Knolls V. Barnhart, 71 N. Y. 474. Compare
Streeter v. Shultz, 45 Hun (N. Y.) 406 [o/-
firmed in 127 N. Y. 652, 27 N. E. 857].
Purchase by relative. — Acquiescence in an
unfulfilled plan whereby title to comm-on prop-
erty should be purchased by relatives of a
tenant in common cannot defeat the interest
of such tenant in common in the premises
purchased by his cotenant. Richards v. Rich-
ards, 31 Pa. Super. Ct. 509.
The purchasing cotenant holds as a con-
structive trustee. Ryason v. Dunten, 164
Ind. 85, 73 N. E. 74. And the same rule
applies to those holding under a cotenant.
Culmore v. Medlenka, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898)
44 S. W. 676.
Where part of an adjoining tract over-
lapped the common property and one of the
tenants in common by consent of all, and with
the advice of common counsel, purchased the
entire adjoining tract, such purchase was
made for the benefit of the common owners
only to the extent of the overlapping part,
and upon said purchaser being reimbursed
proportionally as to that part the tenants in
common would be entitled to their respective
portions thereof on partition. Gass v.
Waterhouse, (Tenn. Ch. App. 1900) 61 S. W.
450.
57. Alahama. — -Savage r. Bradley, 149 Ala.
169, 43 So. 20, 123 Am. St. Rep. 30.
California. — Mandeville v. Solomon, 39 Cal.
125.
Colorado. — Franklin Min. Co. v. O'Brien,
22 Colo. 129, 43 Pac. 1016, 55 Am. St. Rep.
118.
Illinois. — Goralski v. Kostuski, 17S 111.
177, 53 N. E. 720, 70 Am. St. Rep. 98;
Walker v. Warner, 179 111. 16, 53 N. E. 594,
70 Am. St. Rep. 85; Burr t. Mueller, 65 111.
258.
Indiana. — Ryason r. Dunten, 164 Ind. 85,
73 N. E. 74; Turpie r. Lowe, 158 Ind. 314,
62 N. E. 484, 92 Am. St. Rep. 1310; Stevens
V. Reynolds, 143 Ind. 467, 41 N. E. 931, 52
Am. St. Rep. 422.
Kentucky. — Francis r. Million, 80 S. W.
486, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 42.
Massachusetts. — Blodgett v. Hildreth, 8
Allen 186.
Missouri. — Nalle v. Parks, 173 Mo. 616, 73
S. W. 596; Potter v. Herring, 57 Mo. 184;
Picot i: Page, 26 Mo. 398 ; Jonea v. Stanton,
11 Mo. 433.
Welirasha. — Craven v. Craven, 68 Nebr.
469, 94 N. W. 604.
[Ill, D, 1, a]
Nevada. — Boskowitz v. Davis, 12 Nev. 446.
Xew Jersey. — ^Weller v. Rolason, 17 N. J.
Eq. 13.
New York. — Carpenter v. Carpenter, 131
N. Y. 101, 29 N. E. 1013, 27 Am. St. Rep.
569; Koke v. Balken, 73 Hun 145, 25 N. Y.
Suppl. 1038, 148 N. Y. 732, 42 N. E. 724; Van
Home V. Fonda, 5 Johns. Ch. 388.
Oregon. — Crawford v. O'Connell, 39 Oreg.
153, 64 Pac. 656.
Pennsylvania. — Duff v. Wilson, 72 Pa. St.
442.
Rhode Island. — Green v. Walker, 22 R. I.
14, 45 Atl. 742.
Texas. — Niday f. Cochran, 42 Tex. Civ.
App. 292, 93 S. W. 1027; McFarlin v. Lea-
man, (Civ. App. 1895) 29 S. W. 44.
Virginia.— KslII t. Caldwell, 97 Va. 311, 33
S. E. 596.
West Virginia. — Flat Top Grocery Co. V.
Bailey, 62 W. Va. 84, 57 S. E. 302 ; Morris v.
Roseberry, 46 W. Va. 24, 32 S. E. 1019; Gil-
christ V. Beswick, 33 W. Va. 168, 10 S. E.
371.
Wisconsin. — Atkinson v. Hewett, 63 Wis.
396, 23 N. W. 889.
United States. — Rothwell v. Dewees, 2
Black 613, 17 L. ed. 309.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 55 et seq.
Such election may be made by way of cross
bill. Smith v. Osborne, 86 111. 606.
An unreasonable delay in making election
to claim benefit until the condition of the
property or circumstances of the parties are
changed amounts to an abandonment of the
right to elect. Morris v. Roseberry, 46
W. Va. 24, 32 S. E. 1019.
58. Massachusetts. — Matthews v. Bliss, 22
Pick. 48.
Michigan. — Ream v. Robinson, 128 Mich.
92, 87 N. W. 115, where one purchased
at a mortgage foreclosure sale, knowing
that one of the tenants in common of
land who had paid more than her share
of the mortgage debt regarded him as a co-
tenant, and thereupon claimed to have quit-
claimed the land to his son prior to the fore-
closure proceedings, and the facts were held
to authorize a decree setting aside the quit-
claim deed and declaring the parties tenants
in common.
New York. — Graham v. Luddington, 19
Hun 246, a judgment and deed to lands
owned in common, procured by fraud, held
to be void as against cotenants.
Oregon. — Dray r. Dray, 21 Oreg. 59, 27
Pac. 223, holding that inducing a cotenant to
deed his interest in the common property, sold
at a judicial sale, under promise of redemp-
tion thereof; permitting time for redemption
to expire and taking a deed thereto from the
execution purchaser, makes such deed con-
structively fraudulent and such title inures
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 43
obtains title to the common property by a fraudulent agreement with one of the
cotenants therein, such third person is liable to the other cotenant for the value
of his share therein; or such title may be declared void.^° A cotenant who pur-
chases a conflicting title, or his successor, having notice of all the facts, will not
be permitted in the contest over the title, in which the other cooowners claim
that the purchase of the conflicting title inures to their benefit, to question the
common title of the cotenants where such claim would be inequitable/" nor can
he, in an action against him by his cotenants to be let into possession, justify an
ouster of plaintiff by setting up an outstanding title purchased by him while
in possession under the common title, although such title, so purchased, be the
true one."' Nor can he set up a title from the owners of the land as against a
possessory title under which he has exclusive possession and his cotenants are
claiming their proportional shares; "^ and he cannot set up a sheriff's deed on the
foreclosure of an outstanding mortgage as against his cotenant."^ Where a
coparcener claiming under an ancestor who had a defective title falsely states
the consideration in his deed for the purchase of an outstanding title and conceals
the fact of purchase from his coparceners, he is not allowed to rely upon lapse
of time to defeat their right to the benefit of such purchase."* There can be no
foreclosure of an outstanding encumbrance on the common property between
cotenants, imless plaintiff can show that defendants are liable for the entire
incumbrance and that he is not liable for any part of such claim. "^
b. Extent and Qualification of Rule. The rule above stated °" is qualified in
some cases which hold that the purchase of an outstanding interest must be inter-
preted according to surrounding circumstances,"' and that the rule obtains only
to the benefit of such tenants in common.
Pennsylvania. — McGranighan v. McGrani-
ghan, 185 Pa. St. 340, 39 Atl. 951 (the pur-
chase of the common property at judicial
sale after misleading cotenants therein, poor
and inexperienced in business, to believe that
only those having money could save their
shares) ; Maul %. Eider, 51 Pa. St. 377 (hold-
ing that if several persons agree to the pur-
chase of property in common and one of them
fraudulently has said property conveyed to
himself, he holds the title thereto as trustee
for his cotenants whether or not he undertook
to act as their agent).
Texas. — See Clevenger v. Mayfield, (Civ.
App. 1905) 86 S. W. 1062.
The relocation of land by a cobwner taking
unfair advantage of information imparted to
him by a cotenant therein was held to be a
mere subterfuge to defraud the cotenants
therein. Yarwood v. Johnson, 2& Wash. 643,
70 Pac. 123.
But the mere claim of fraud, without the
institution of some proceeding for the pur-
pose of avoiding it, is not sufficient to give
the claimant a legal interest in the common
property. Staples v. Bradley, 23 Conn. 167,
60 Am. Dec. 630.
59. Burrell v. Bull, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N". Y.)
15; Logan v. Oklahoma Mill Co., 14 Okla.
402, 79 Pac. 103.
A secret agreement between a cotenant and
a purchaser of property to be sold at a cer-
tain price, whereby the cotenant actually
making the sale is to own a share of the
common property upon payment of a propor-
tionate share of the purchase-price, is void-
able at the complaint of the other cotenant.
Small f. Robinson, 9 Hun (N. Y.) 418.
Rent may be recovered from the time of
the delivery of deeds of the interest of on^
tenant in common, if said deeds were ob-
tained by fraud. Zapp v. Miller, 109 N. Y.
51, 15 N. E. 889.
But mere neglect on the part of such pur-
chaser to inquire into the state of the title
may not be sufficient to create fraud.
Ft. Scott V. Sohulenberg, 22 Kan. 648.
60. Inglis V. Webb, 117 Ala. 387, 23 So.
125; Cedar Canyon Consol. Min. Co. v. Yar-
wood, 27 Wash. 271, 67 Pac. 749, 91 Am. St.
Eep. 841.
61. Olney v. Sawyer, 54 Cal. 379; Alexan-
der V. Sully, 50 Iowa 192; Venable v. Beau-
champ, 3 Dana (Ky.) 321, 28 Am. Dee. 74;
Van Home v. Fonda, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.)
388; Saladin v. Kraayvanger, 96 Wis. 180,
70 N. W. 1113.
62. Phelan v. Kelly, 25 Wend. (N. Y.)
389.
63. McPheeters v. Wright, 124 Ind. 560, 24
N. E. 734, 9 L. R. A. 176; Moy v. Moy, 89
Iowa 511, 56 N. W. 668.
64. Pillow V. Southwest Imp. Co., 92 Va.
144, 23 S. E. 32, 53 Am. St. Eep. 804.
65. Holmes v. Holmes, 129 Mich. 412, 89
N. W. 47, 95 Am. St. Rep. 444; Cornell v.
Presoott, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) 16; Deavitt v.
Eing, 73 Vt. 298, 50 Atl. 1066; Burnett v.
Ewing, 39 Wash. 45, 80 Pac. 855.
66. See supra. III, D, 1.
67. Mandeville v. Solomon, 39 Cal. 125;
Sparks T. Bodensick, 72 Kan. 5, 82 Pac. 463;
Stubblefield v. Hanson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1906)
94 S. W. 406.
Use of relationship. — Whether or not the
cotenant used the cotenancy, or any title,
right, or claim in relation thereto, to acquire
[III. D, 1, b]
44 [38 Cye.J
TENANCY IN COMMON
where the relation of tenancy in common exists in strictness, and where the relation
is such as to require mutual trust and confidence/* some cases going to the extent
of holding that the mutual obligation arises only where the parties have acquired
the property by the same instnmient or act of the parties or of law,*' and that
persons acquiruig unconnected interests in the same subject by distinct pur-
chases, although it may be under the same title, are probably not bound to any
greater protection of one another's interests than would be required between
strangers.'" But, by the weight of authority, where a relationship of confidence
is shown to exist, it is not necessary that the several titles shall be held by the
same conveyance or by the same act of law." A purchase by one tenant in common
the outstanding title should be considered.
Myers f. Eeed, 17 Fed. 401, 9 Sawy. 132.
Indebtedness of purchaser to cotenant. —
The mere fiact that the purchaser is indebted
to his cotenant does not of itself give the
creditor tenant an interest in such purchase.
King V. Wilson, 54 N. J. Eq. 247, 34 Atl.
394; Lewis v. Robinson, 10 Watts (Pa.) 354.
68. Arkansas. — Britton x. Handy, 20 Ark.
381, 73 Am. Dec. 497.
California. — Gunter v. Laffan, 7 Cal. 588.
See also Tully i;. TuUy, 71 Cal. 338, 12 Pac.
246.
Indiana. — Eyason v. Dunten, 164 Ind. 85,
73 N. E. 74; Stevens v. Reynolds, 143 Ind.
467, 41 N. E. 931, 52 Am. St. Rep. 422; Elston
r. Piggott, 94 Ind. 14.
Massachusetts. — ilatthews v. Bliss, 22
Pick. 48.
Missouri. — Smith v. Washington, 1 1 Mo.
App. 519.
jN'eu) York. — ^Van Home r. Fonda, 5 Johns.
Ch. 388.
Sorth Carolina. — Jackson v. Baird, 148
N. C. 29, 61 S. E. 632, 19 L. R. A. N. S. 591.
Pennsylvania. — Reinboth r. Zerbe Run
Imp. Co., 29 Pa. St. 139.
Tennessee. — King i. Rowan, 10 Heisk.
675.
Texas. — Rippetoe v. Dwyer, 49 Tex. 498;
Roberts v. Thorn, 25 Tex. 728, 78 Am. Dec.
552; Kiday r. Cochran, 42 Tex. Civ. App.
292, 93 S. W. 1027.
Wisconsin. — Frentz v. Klotseh, 28 Wis.
312.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 56 et seg.
69. King V. Rowan, 10 Heisk. (Tenn.) 675;
Roberts v. Thorn, 25 Tex. 728, 78 Am. Dec.
552 ; Xiday v. Cochran, 42 Tex. Civ. App.
292, 93 S. W. 1027.
If the cotenant does not complain, a
stranger to whom the purchasing cotenant
stands in no relation of trust and confidence
cannot complain. Burgett r. Williford, 56
Ark. 187, 19 S. W. 750, 35 Am. St. Rep. 96.
70. Alalama. — Given r. Troxel, (1905) 39
So. 578.
Indiana. — Ryason r. Dunten, 164 Ind. 85,
73 N. E. 74; Jennings f. Moon, 135 Ind. 168,
34 N". E. 996.
Michigan. — Holmes c. Holmes, 129 JMich.
412, 89 N. W. 47, 95 Am. St. Rep. 444 ; Wat-
kins i: Green, 101 Mich. 493, 60 N. W. 44;
Sands r. Davis, 40 Mich. 14.
Minnesota. — Barteau r. Merriam, 52 Minn.
222, 53 N. W. 1061.
[Ill, D, 1, b]
Missouri. — Potter v. Herring, 57 Mo. 184.
Teoeas. — Fielding v. White, (Civ. App
1895) 32 S. W. 1064.
Virginia. — Buchanan v. King, 22 Gratt.
414.
Washington. — • Burnett f. Ewing, 39 Wash,
45, 80 Pac. 855.
Wisconsin. — Frentz v. Klotseh, 28 Wis,
312.
United States. — Myers v. Reed, 17 Fed,
401, 9 Sawy. 132.
England. — Kennedy v. De Trafford, (1897)
A. C. 180, 66 L. J. Ch. 413, 76 L. T. Rep
X. S. 427, 45 Wkly. Rep. 671.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 56 et seq.
Acquiring difierent estates. — Where one
tenant in common, under a, deed conveying
the grantor's equitable interest, acquires the
outstanding legal title, such lesal title does
not inure to the benefit of his said cotenant
(Nalle r. Thompson, 173 Mo. 595, 73 S. W.
599; Kershaw V. Simpson, 46 Wash. 313, 89
Pac. 889), nor where the grantee of one, a
stranger to the common title, who had pur-
chased the property at a foreclosure sale,
thereafter purchased the legal title of one of
the cotenants at a time when the foreclosure
was not complete, by reason of the time to
redeem not having expired, so that the estate
of the grantee of the purchaser at the fore-
closure sale was that of a mortgagee before
foreclosure, only an equitable estate or in-
terest in which the right to hold and enforce
his interest for his own benefit was fixed in
the absence of redemption ; and where said
grantee did no act on which a merger of said
equitable estate and said legal estate could
be predicated (Given t\ Troxel, (Ala. 1905)
39 So. 578 [distinguishing Jones v. Matkin,
118 Ala. 341, 24 So. 242]; Horton v. Maffitt,
14 Minn. 289, 100 Am. Dec. 222).
Title from government.— It seems that the
principle that the purchase by one cotenant
inures to the benefit of all does not apply to a
title acquired from the United States in the
absence of fraud or special contract. Sulli-
van [-. McLenans, 2 Iowa 437, 65 Am Dec
780.
71. Illinois. — Montague r. Selb, 106 111.
49.
7oioa.— Phillips r. Wilmarth, 98 Iowa 32
66 N. W. 1053; Leach r. Hall, 95 Iowa 61l'
64 N. W. 790.
Kentucki/. — Owings i-. McClain, 1 A K
Marsh. 230.
New Jersey.— Vmted New Jersey R., etc..
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 45
does not inure to the benefit of a cotenant whenever for any reason the tenancy
has terminated," and the same principle applies whenever the outstanding interest
is acquired before the creation of the relationship of cotenancy," or where the
title claimed in common is a nullity,'* or where the outstanding title is acquired
by one whose claim to the common property is not in recognition of or subservient
to the title of the other tenants in common therein; '^ and since the principle
that the one in possession acts on behalf of aU with whom he has a common interest
in the property is based largely on the special circumstances under and intentions
with which the act alleged or claimed to have been done for the benefit of all
was performed, and as presumption generally enters very largely into the deter-
mination of the intention with which the act was done, it necessarily follows that
if there be direct evidence, making presumption unnecessary, the question of
common interest will be determined on the evidence adduced and not on the gen-
eral rule based on presumption." Thus the purchase of a reversion by one cotenant
is riot adverse to the interest of his termor cotenant; '' nor is the purchase by one
cotenant of a life-estate adverse to the interests of the cotenants in the remainder; "
nor, the evidence not showing distinctly that the purchase was made on behalf
of the cotenants, does the purchase by one of them of certain land excepted from
the conveyance under which they acquired title from one who had bought in
both tracts at tax-sale, create a trust.!' The purchase of an outstanding title
Co. t. Ck)nsolidated Fruit Jar Co., (Oh. 1903)
55 Atl. 46.
South Dakota. — Johnson v. Branch, 9 S. D.
116, 68 N. W. 173, 62 Am. St. Rep. 857.
West Virginia. — Cecil v. Clark, 44 W. Va.
659, 30 S. E. 216.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 55 et seq.
72. Johnson v. Toulmin, 18 Ala. 50, 62
Am. Dec. 212; Jackson v. Burtis, 14 Johns.
(N. Y.) 391; Eeinhoth v. Zerbe Run Imp.
Co., 29 Pa. St. 139; In re Biss, (1903) 2 Ch.
40, 4&; Hunter v. Allen, (1907) 1 Ir. R. 212.
See also Alexander v. Sully, 50 Iowa 192;
Coleman f. Coleman, 3 Dana (Ky.) 398, 28
Am. Dec. 86; Sweetland f. Buell, 89 Hun
(N. Y.) 543, 35 N. Y. Suppl. 346 [affirmed
in 164 N. Y. 541, 58 N. E. 663, 79 Am. St.
Rep. 676].
Purchase after lapse of period of redemp-
tion. — Where land is owned by tenants in
common and sold for payment of taxes, and
the period of redemption has fully elapsed,
the purchase of the land by one of the ten-
ants in common will not inure to the benefit
of all of them. Jonas v. Flanniken, 69 Miss.
577, 11 So. 319; Jackson v. Burtis, 14 Johns.
(K. Y.) 391; Wells f. Chapman, 4 Sandf. Ch.
(N. Y.) 312 [affirmed in 13 Barb. 561]; Sut-
ton V. Jenkins, 147 N. C. 11, 60 S. E. 643;
Eeinboth f. Zerbe Run Imp. Co., 29 Pa. St.
139; Kirkpatrick v. Mathiot, 4 Watts & S.
(Pa.) 251; Keele V. Cunningham, 2 Heisk.
(Tenn.) 288.
Cotenancy having been severed by a sale
under a decree of partition to one of the co-
tenants therein, and taxes, constituting a
lien at time of said sale, having been subse-
quently paid by said purchaser, it was held
that he made such payment in the character
of purchaser. Stephens v. Ells, 65 Mo. 456.
73. Alalama.— Qiv&n V. Troxel, (1905) 39
So. 578.
Arkansas. — Brittin v. Handy, 20 Ark. 381,
73 Am. Dec. 497. '
Illinois. — Webster v. Webster, 55 HI. 325.
Indiana. — Elston v. Piggott, 94 Ind. 14 ;
Hatfield v. Mahoney, 39 Ind. App. 499, 79
N. E. 408', 1086.
Kentucky. — Sneed v. Atherton, 6 Dana 276,
32 Am. Dec. 70.
Minnesota. — See Hoyt v. Lightbody, 98
Minn. 189, 108 N. W. 843, 116 Am. St. Rep.
358.
Mississippi. — Jonas v. Flanniken, 69 Miss.
577, 11 So. 319:
Nebraska. — Mills v. Miller, 4 Nebr. 441.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 56 et seq.
74. Bornheimer v. Baldwin, 42 Cal. 27;
Burhans r. Van Zandt, 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 91
[reversed on other grounds in 7 N. Y. 523,
Seld. Notes 31] ; Niday v. Cochran, 42 Tex.
Civ. App. 292, 93 S. W. 1027 ; Cecil v. Clark,
44 W. Va. 659, 30 S. E. 216. But see
Clements t: Gates, 49 Ark. 242, 4 S. W. 776,
holding that a cotenant may be liable to
account as trustee where he purchases an
outstanding title, even though the title de-
, rived by him and his cotenants from a com-
mon ancestor be defective or void.
75. Smith v. Hamakua Mill Co., 13 Hawaii
716 ; Niday v. Cochran, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 292,
93 S. W. 1027.
76. Gillett V. Gaffney, 3 Colo. 351; Lar-
man«. Huey, 13 B. Men. (Ky.) 436; Streeter
V. Shultz, 45 Hun (N. Y.) 406 [affirmed in
127 N. Y. 652, 27 N. E. 857] ; Phelan v.
Kelly, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 389; Watson v.
Watson, 198 Pa. St. 234, 47 Atl. 1096; Wat-
son V. Watson, 31 Pittsb. Leg. J. N. S. (Pa.)
91.
77. Eamberg v. Wahlstrom, 140 111. 182,
29 N. E. 727, 33 Am. St. Rep. 227 ; Kershaw
V. Simpson, 46 Wash. 313, 89 Pac. 889.
78. McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 80 Md.
115, 30 Atl. 607; Fox f. Coon, 64 Miss. 465,
1 So. 629.
79. Brickell v. Earley, 115 Pa. St. 473, 8
Atl. 623.
[Ill, D, 1, b]
46 [38 Cye.j
TENANCY IN COMMON
by a tenant in common to purchase peace does not inure to the benefit of his
cotenants who were made his co-defendants but failed to join him in the defense. '"
e. Contribution; Lien. The liabiUty of cotenants as between themselves, for
the payment of liens against the common estate, is proportionate to their
respective iaterests.'' Therefore the purchase or discharge of an encum-
brance, lien, or outstanding title for the benefit of the common property
entitles him who so purchases to contribution from each of his cotenants to
the expense which releases the common interest from embarrassment or perfects
the title thereto, the right of the non-purchasing cotenants to share in the benefit
of a purchase being dependent on their election, within a reasonable time, to bear
their portion of the expenses necessarily incurred in said purchase. They cannot
ordinarily share in the benefit of the purchase without contributing or tendering
their proportionate shares of the cost and expense, °^ such contribution being
80. Asher r. Howard, 70 S. W. 277, 24 Ky.
L. Rep. 961.
81. Oliver r. Lansing, 57 Xebr. 352, 77
N. W. 802.
82. Alabama. — Newbold r. Smart, 67 Ala.
326 ; Thomas f. Hearn, 2 Port. 262.
California. — Stevenson v. Boyd, 153 Cal.
630, 96 Pac. 284, 19 L. E. A. X. S. 525;
McCord V. Oakland Quicksilver ilin. Co., 64
Cal. 134, 27 Pac. 863, 49 Am. Rep. 686;
Mandeville f. Solomon, 39 Cal. 125.
Colorado. — Franklin Min. Co. v. O'Brien,
22 Colo. 129, 43 Pac. 1016, 55 Am. St. Rep.
118.
Florida. — Walker f. Sarven, 41 Fla. 210,
25 So. 885.
Illinois. — Salem Xat. Bank f. White, 159
III. 136, 42 X. E. 312; Smith r. Osborne, 86
III. 606 ; Wilton v. Tazwell, 86 111. 29 ; Busch
r. Huston, 75 111. 343; Burr f. Mueller, 65
III. 258; Titsworth v. Stout, 49 111. 78, 95
Am. Dec. 577; Ott r. Flinspach, 143 111. App.
61; Querney v. Quernev, 127 111. App. 75;
Case V. Case, 103 111. App. 177.
Indiana. — Stevens v. Reynolds, 143 Ind.
467, 41 X^ E. 931, 52 Am. St. Rep. 422; Moon
t: Jennings, 119 Ind. 130, 20 N. E. 748, 21
N". E. 471, 12 Am. St. Rep. 383.
Iowa. — Austin v. Barrett, 44 Iowa 488;
Flinn i: McKinley, 44 Iowa 68. Compare
Koboliska r. Swehla, 107 Iowa 124, 77 N. W.
576.
Kansas. — Farmers' Xat. Bank t". Robinson,
(1898) 53 Pac. 762.
Kentucky. — Lee f. Fox, 6 Dana 171; Ven-
able f. Beauchamp, 3 Dana 321, 28 Am. Dec.
74; Asher v. Howard, 70 S. W. 277, 24 Ky.
L. Rep. 961.
Maine. — Coburn V. Page, 105 Me. 458, 74
Atl. 1026, 134 Am. St. Rep. 575; Moore r.
Gibson, 53 lie. 551; Reed v. Bachelder, 34
Me. 205.
Maryland. — Darcey v. Bayne, 105 Md. 365,
66 Atl. 434, 10 L. R. A. N. S. 863.
Massachusetts. — Blodgett r. Hildreth, 8
Allen 186; Dickinson v. Williams, 11 Gush.
258, 59 Am. Dec. 142.
Minnesota. — Fritz v. Eamspott, 76 Minn.
48fl, 79 X^. W. 520 ; Ohio Iron Co. i\ Auburn
Iron Co., 64 Minn. 404, 67 N. W. 221 ; Oliver
V. Hedderly, 32 Minn. 455, 21 X^ W. 478.
Mississippi. — Harrison v. Harrison, 56
Miss. 174.
Missouri. — Kohle v. Hobson, 215 Mo. 213,
[ni, D, 1, b]
114 S. W. 952; Mahoney v. X'^evins, 190 Mo.
360, 88 S. W. 731; Jones v. Stanton, 11 Mo.
433; Schneider Granite Co. v. Taylor, 64
Mo. App. 37, holding that one who has paid
a judgment rendered in a suit to enforce a
special tax bill may maintain an action for
contribution against his coowners who were
not made parties to the suit.
Xebraska. — Craven v. Craven, 68 Xebr.
459, 94 N. W. 604; Carson c. Broady, 56
X'ebr. 648, 77 X. W. 80, 71 Am. St. Rep. 691.
Nevada. — Boskowitz v. Davis, 12 Nev. 446.
Xew Jersey. — Weller v. Rolason, 17 X. J.
Eq. 13.
New York. — Quackenbush t: Leonard, 9
Paige 334; Van Home v. Fonda, 5 Johns. Ch.
388; Burrell v. Bull, 3 Sandf. Ch. 15.
North Carolina. — -Holt r. Couch, 125 X. C.
456, 34 S. E. 703, 74 Am. St. Rep. 648.
Oregon. — Crawford v. O'Counell, 39 Oreg.
153, 64 Pac. 656.
Pennsylvania. — McGranighan v. McGran-
ighan, 6 Pa. Dist. 33, 19 Pa. Co. Ct. 75 ; Hite
r. Hite, 21 Pa. Co. Ct. 97.
Rhode Island. — -Green f. Walker, 22 E. I.
14, 45 Atl. 742.
Tennessee. — Gass r. Waterhouse, ( Ch.
App. 1900) 61 S. W. 450.
Texas. — X'iday r. Cochran, 42 Tex. Civ.
App. 292, 93 S. W. 1027; McFarlin v. Lea-
man, (Civ. App. 1895) 29 S. W. 44; Branch
V. Makeig, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 399, 28 S. W.
1050. See also Thomas v. Morrison, (Civ.
App.) 46 S. W. 46, holding that where an at-
torney, recovering land for a client under an
agreement to convey a certain portion thereof
to said attorney for his services, was com-
pelled to buy an outstanding claim because
of the client's fraudulent acts, the attorney
was entitled to contribution according to
their respective shares. Compare Peak v.
Brinson, 71 Tex. 310, 11 S. W. 269.
Virginia. — Grove v. Grove, 100 Va. 556, 42
S. E. 312; Ballou v. Ballou, 94 Va. 350, 26
S. E. 840, 64 Am. St. Rep. 773; Pillow r.
Southwest Imp. Co., 92 Va. 144, 23 S. E 32
53 Am. St. Rep. 804.
Washington. — Kershaw r. Simpson 46
Wash. 313, 89 Pac. 889; Burnett v. Kirk, 39
Wash. 45, 80 Pac. 855 ; Cedar Canyon Consol
Min. Co. v. Yarwood, 27 Wash. 271, 67 Pac
749, 91 Am. St. Eep. 841.
West Virginia. — Morris r. Eoseberry 46
W. Va. 24, 32 S. E. 1019; Ward v. Ward, 40
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 47
proportionate to the respective interests; *' and although the purchasing tenant in
common cannot purchase an outstanding interest against his cotenant, he is
nevertheless entitled to hold his deed as security for the money paid." A
tenant in common relieving the common property from a mortgage, lien,
or charge for the joint benefit of the tenants in common is entitled to an equitable
lien by subrogation, and to contribution from his respective cotenants out of
their respective interests in the common property.'^ The foregoing rules are
W. Va. 611, 29 L. E. A. 449, 21 S. E. 746,
52 Am. St. Rep. 911.
'Wisconsin. — • McLaughlin t. Curts, 27 Wis.
644, holding that payment of a mortgage on
common property before sale, given by the
tenants thereof for their joint debt, entitles
the cotenant so paying before Sale to contri-
bution. Compare Tipping v. Robbins, 71 Wis.
607, 37 N. W. 427.
United States. — Rothwell f. Dewees, 2
Black 613, 7 L. ed. 309.
Canada. — In re Currv, 25 Ont. App. 267
[affirming 17 Ont. Pr. 379].
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 59 et seq.
But see Norris v. Hill, 1 Mich. 202 (hold-
ing that, although the owners of the three
quarters of a water power be compelled to
purchase a piece of land to secure to the
proprietors of the power the right to flow it,
yet a court of equity will not decree contri-
bution by the owner of the remaining quar-
ter) ; Boskowitz V. Davis, 12 Nev. 446 (hold-
ing that the principle applies only where the
purchasing cotenant desires payment and con-
ducts himself accordingly and where he does
not act as though he had intended his ex-
penditure to be a gratuity to his cotenants ) .
Too long delay to contribute to the pur-
chase-price abandons all benefits. Morns v.
Roseberry, 46 W. Va. 24, 32 S. E. 1019.
Even though a claim therefor would be
barred by limitations in an independent ac-
tion brought for such contribution, in parti-
tion proceedings contribution will be en-
forced against a cotenant. Querney v. Quer-
ney, 127 111. App. 75.
Right as affected by agreement. — The pur-
chasing cotenant is not entitled to contribu-
tion from his cotenants where he has entered
into an arrangement whereby a third party,
in consideration of such purchase, became
solely liable for contribution to the pur-
chaser. Mills V. Miller, 4 Nebr. 441.
One tenant in common of an estate in ex-
pectancy has no right to discharge a burden
on the estate in the hands of a life-tenant
in possession, and to demand contribution
from his cotenants therein, except where it
is necessary to prevent a destruction of the
expectancy. Harrison f. Harrison, 56 Miss.
174.
A tenant in common of an equity of re-
demption paying the whole mortgage debt
cannot seek contribution from his cotenants
personally, but can merely foreclose their in-
terests if they fail to pay their share. Lyon
V. Robbins, 45 Conn. 513.
The light does not pass to a mortgagee of
the cotenant's interest under a mortgage con-
veying his undivided interest in the common
property. Oliver i: Lansing, 57 Nebr. 352,
77 N. W. 802.
There is no personal claim beyond said
lien against said cotenant or his estate after
his decease. McLaughlin v. Curts, 27 Wis.
644.
Interest. — If a tenant in common claims
contribution because of the purchase of an
outstanding lien, claim, or title, he is not
entitled to the payment of statutory puai
tive interest generally provided for pui
chasers of like claims, liens, or titles, bul
only to the ordinary legal rat6 of interest.
Phipps V. Phipps, 47 Kan. 328, 27 Pac. 972.
If he purchases adjoining land, thus coming
into possession of a necessary easement of
way, he may be entitled, under the circum-
stances of the case, to legal interest on the
purchase-price of the land, if the tort be
waived and an accounting had. Cecil v.
Clarke, 49 W. Va. 459, 39 S. E. 202.
83. Titsworth v. Stout, 49 111. 78, 95 Am.
Dec. 577.
The rule is enforced against the husband
or wife of a cotenant so purchasing an out-
standing interest, encumbrance, or conflict-
ing claim or tendering money therefor or in
satisfaction thereof, and such husband or wife
will be entitled to contribution the same
as a cotenant might otherwise be. Smith v.
Smith, 68 Iowa 608, 27 N. W. 780; Perkins
V. Smith, 37 S. W. 72, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 509;
Beaman f. Beaman, 90 Miss. 762, 44 So. 987 ;
Chace v. Durfee, 16 R. I. 248, 14 Atl. 919.
84. McCrary v. Glover, 100 Ga. 90, 20
S. E. lCi2; Chace v. Durfee, 16 R. I. 248, 14
Atl. 919. But see Jennings V. Moon, 135 Ind.
168, 34 N. E. 996.
One who has paid more than his share of
the purchase-price of the property comes
within the rule, even though it be admitted
that such expenditures, not being for the ex-
tinguishment of any lien, do not entitle him
to a lien by subrogation. Funk v. Seehorn,
99 Mo. App. 587, 74 S. W. 445.
85. Alabama. — Newbold v. Smart, 67 Ala.
326.
Arkansas. — Moore v. Woodall, 40 Ark. 42.
California. — Calkins v. Steinbach, 66 Cal.
117, 4 Pac. 1103.
Illinois. — Glos v. Clark, 97 111. App. 609
[reversed on other grounds in 199 111. 147,
65 2Sr. E. 135]; GrifSth v. Robinson, 14 111.
App. 377.
Indiana. — Moon v. Jennings, 119 Ind. 130,
20 N. E. 748, 21 N. E. 471, 12 Am. St. Rep.
383; Eads v. Retherford, 114 Ind. 273, 16
N. E. 587, 5 Am. St. Rep. 611.
Iowa. — Oliver v. Montgomery, 42 Iowa 36.
Maine. — Moore v. Gibson, 53 Me. 551.
Massachusetts. — Hurley v. Hurley, 148
[ni,D, l,e]
48 [38 Cycl
TENANCY IN COMMON
not applicable to such a purchase by one at a time prior to becoming a tenant in
common with the others,'" and the right does not attach where a mortgage debt
is paid after its discharge; *' nor where there is a primary duty on another to have
discharged the lien and it does not appear that such payment was made because
of the failure of the party primarily liable to make it; *' nor where a claim for
contribution is stale, because of laches or limitations.*' Notice, actual or con-
structive, of the purchase of an outstanding title must be brought home to a
cotenant before his right to contribute thereto is lost.'" An action at law may be
maintained between cotenants for the recovery of money expended by some of
them for the removal of a joint lien or encumbrance, where sanctioned by statute
or public policy. ^^ A presumption of repudiation of a transaction in relation to,
or of abandonment of, a cotenancy may arise where a cotenant has for a long
time failed to do any act of ownership in relation to the common property or has
failed to contribute or offer contribution toward the purchase of some outstanding
interest.'^
2. Extinguishment of Tax Claim and Purchase of Tax Title — a. Right to
Extinguish or Purchase, and Effect Thereof. One tenant in common may redeem
for himself and for his cotenants the common land sold for taxes.'' The
purchase of the outstanding tax title for the entire property, by or for the
tenant in common, operates as a payment of the tax and an extinguishment
of the tax title,"* and the deed given to one of the tenants in common, who
was the purchaser, simply acts as a discharge of the taxes assessed on the
land.°^ The rules above stated in relation to the purchase of outstanding interests
generally "" apply with full force to the acquisition of tax titles by one or more
cotenants less than the whole number; thus if one or more of several tenants
in common redeem from or purchase the property at a tax-sale, either by them-
selves or through a third person, the title thus acquired inures to the benefit
Mass. 444, 19 N. E. 545, 2 L. R. A. 172;
Blodgett V. Hildreth, 8 Allen 186.
Minnesota. — Fritz x. Ramspott, 76 Minn.
489, 79 N. W. 520.
Mississippi. — ■ Davidson v. Wallace, 53
Miss. 475, so holding, although there is no
express agreement.
Missouri. — ■ Mahoney i". Nevins, 190 Mo.
360, 88 S. W. 731.
Nebraska. — Oliver v. Lansing, 57 Nebr.
352, 77 N. W. 802.
New Jersey. — Thiele r. Thiele, 57 N. J. Eq.
98, 40 Atl. 446.
Rhode Island. — • Green v. Walker, 22 R. I.
14, 45 Atl. 742.
Texas. — Niday r. Cochran, 42 Tex. Civ.
App. 292, 93 S. W. 1027; Branch v. Mak«ig,
9 Tex. Civ. App. 399, 28 S. W. 1050.
FermoTC*.— Deavitt v. Ring, 73 Vt. 298, 50
Atl. 1066.
Virginia. — Grove V. Grove, 100 Va. 556,
42 S. E. 312.
Wisconsin. — Connell l". Welch, 101 Wis. 8,
76 N. W. 596; McLaughlin i: Curts, 27 Wis.
644.
•United States. — McClintock v. Fontaine,
119 Fed. 448.
The lien may be enforced against the co-
tenant's grantee. Young r. Bigger, 73 Kan.
146, 84 Pac. 747.
86. Carson v. Broady, 56 Nehr. 648, 77
N. W. 80, 71 Am. St. Rep. 691; Downey v.
Strouse, 101 Va. 226, 43 S. E. 348.
87. Rentz v. Eckert, 74 Conn. 11, 49 Atl.
203.
[Ill, D, 1, e]
88. Booth V. Booth, 114 Iowa 78, 86 N. W.
51.
89. Peak v. Brinson, 71 Tex. 310, 11 S. W.
269.
90. Niday i: Cochran, 42 Tex. Civ. App.
292, 93 S. W. 1027.
91. Dickinson v. Williams, 11 Cush. (Mass.)
258, 59 Am. Dec. 142.
93. Johnson v. Touhnin, 18 Ala. 50, 52
Am'. Dec. 212; Mandeville f. Solomon, 39
Cal. 125; Nalle v. Parks, 173 Mo. 616, 73
S. W. 596.
93. Horner f. Ellis, 75 Kan. 675, 90 Plac.
275, 121 Am. St. Rep. 446; Halsey v. Blood,
29 Pa. St. 319. And see cases cited infra,
the following notes.
94. Michigan. — Sleight f. Roe, 125 Mich.
585, 85 N. W. 10.
Minnesota. — Easton v. Scofield, 66 Minn.
425, 69 N. W. 326.
Mississippi. — Falkner v. Thurmond, (1898)
23 So. 584.
West Virginia. — Cecil r. Clark, 49 W. Va.
459, 39 S. E. 202 ; Parker v. Brast, 45 W. Va.
399, 32 S. E. 269; Curtis v. Borland, 35
W. Va. 124, 12 S. E, 1113; Battin v. Woods,
27 W. Va. 58.
Wisconsin. — Hannig v. Mueller, 82 Wis.
235, 52 N. W. 98.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 60 et seq.
95. Cocks V. Simmons, 55 Ark. 104, 17
S. W^ 594, 29 Am. St. Rep. 28; Downer v
Smith, 38 Vt. 464.
96. See supra, III, D, 1, a.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 49
of their cotenants/' particularly where there are circumstances of unfair advantage
or double dealing/* or where the redeeming cotenant allowed the taxes to become
97. Alabama. — Eussell v. Bell, 160 Ala.
480, 49 So. 314; Johns v. Johns, 93 Ala. 239,
9 So. 419; Donnor x.. Quartermas, 90 Ala.
164, 8 So. 715, 24 Am. St. Kep. 778.
Arkansas. — Burgett v. Willlford, 56 Ark.
187, 19 S. W. 750, 35 Am. St. Hep. 96 ; Cocks
f. Simmons, 55 Ark. 104, 17 S. W. 594, 29
Am. St. Eep. 28.
California. — Emeric v. Alvarado, 90 Cal.
444, 27 Pac. 356.
District of Columhia. — Alexander v. Doug-
lass, 6 D. C. 247.
Illinois. — Lomax v. Gindele, 117 111. 527,
7 N. E. 483; Bracken v. Cooper, 80 111. 221.
Indiana. — English f. Powell, 119 Ind. 93,
21 N. E. 458.
Iowa. — Cooper f. Brown, 143 Iowa 482,
122 N. W. 144; Funson i: Bradt, 105 Iowa
471, 75 N. W. 337; Van Ormer v. Harley,
102 Iowa 150, 71 N. W. 241; Willcuts V.
Rollins, 85 Iowa 247, 52 N. W. 199; Clark
V. Brown, 70 Iowa 139, 30 N. W. 46; Shell
r. Walker, 54 Iowa 386, 6 N. W. 581 ; Sheean
V. Shaw, 47 Iowa 411; Fallon v. Chidester,
46 Iowa 588, 26 Am. Eep. 164; Flinn v.
McKinley, 44 Iowa 68.
Kansas. — Muthersbaugh v. Burke, 33 Kan.
260, 6 Pac. 252.
Louisiana. — ■ Duson v. Eoos, 123 La. 835,
49 So. 590, 131 Am. St. Eep. 375.
Maine. — Williams v. Gray, 3 Me. 207, 14
Am. Dec. 234.
Michigan. — Dahlem v. Abhott, 146 Mich.
605, 110 N. W. 47; Eichards v. Eichards, 75
Mich. 408, 42 N. W. 954; Butler v. Porter,
13 Mich. 292; Page v. Websier, 8 Mich. 263,
77 Am. Dec. 446.
Mississippi. — Harrison v. Harrison, 56
Miss. 174 ; Allen v. Poole, 54 Miss. 323.
New Hampshire. — Barker v. Jones, 62
N. H. 497, 13 Am. St. Eep. 413.
New Jersey. — Roll v. Everett, (1908) 71
Atl. 2«3.
New York. — Knolls v. Barnhart, 71 N. Y.
474.
North Carolina. — Smith f. Smith, 150
N. C. 81, 63 S. E. 177.
Oregon. — Minter v. Durham, 13 Oreg. 470,
11 Pac. 231, holding also that in a suit, be-
tween cotenants, where title is claimed
through a tax-sale, evidence is admissible to
show the amount of rents collected by such
grantee.
Pennsylvania. — Davis v. King, 87 Pa. St.
261.
South Dakota. — Barrett v. McCarty, 20
S. D. 75, 104 N. W. 907.
Fej-OTOra*.— Willard v. Strong, 14 Vt. 532,
39 Am. Dec. 240.
Washington. — Stone v. Marshall, 52 Wash.
375, lOO Pac. 858.
West Virginia. — Parker v. Brast, 45 W. Va.
399, 32 S. E. 269; Cecil v. Clark, 44 W. Va.
659, 30 S. E. 216; Bottin v. Woods, 27
W. Va. 58.
Wisconsin. — Miller v. Donahue, 96 Wis.
498, 71 N. W. 900.
[4]
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 60.
Even though the tax certificate was ac-
quired before he became such tenant in com-
mon, or although he be the assignee of one
so acquiring said certificate, the rule applies.
Tice V. Derby, 59 Iowa 312, 13 N. W. 301;
Flinn v. McKinley, 44 Iowa 68.
The grantee of a cotenant purchasing the
common property at a tax-sale cannot avail
himself as against the other cotenant of the
benefit of a artatute providing that actual
occupation for a certain time after such sale
shall bar all suits to recover the land for
defect in the proceedings. Jonas V. Flanni-
ken, 69 Miss. 577, 11 So. 319.
Purchase with rents and profits. — Where a
tenant in common applied the rents and
profits in his hands to the . purchase of an
outstanding tax certificate and took a deed
to himself thereunder, he is not allowed to
invoke the protection of the statute of limi-
tations applicable to tax-sales. Bender i'.
Stewart, 75 Ind. 88.
Purchase for or through strangers. — An
agreement with a stranger that a cotenant
will bid in the common property for the bene-
fit of the stranger or that a stranger will
purchase it for the benefit of a cotenant
therein, in whole or in part, does not vary
the rule so far as the interests of the co-
tenants are concerned (Fields v. Farmers',
etc., Bank, 110 Ky. 257, 61 S. W. 258, 22 Ky.
L. Rep. 1708; Holterhoff r. Mead, 36 Minn.
42, 29 N. W. 675; Tanney v. Tanney, 24
Pittsb. Leg. J. N. S. (Pa.) 43 [affirmed in
159 Pa. St. 277, 28 Atl. 287, 39 Am. St. Rep.
678] ) ; nor can such interest be defeated by
the mere fact that one of the cotenants ac-
quiesced in a plan by which his own children,
through another person, were to purchase
the property, which plan was never carried
out (Eichards v. Eichards, 31 Pa. Super. Ct.
509).
The taking of an assignment of a tax deed
by one of the tenants in common gives him
no independent title as against his cotenants.
Lloyd V. Lynch, 28 Pa. St. 419, 70 Am. Dec.
137.
An intervener under a quitclaim deed, or
an assignee with knowledge, from one not
entitled to claim the benefit of the tax deed
against the cotenants cannot be in any better
position than his grantor. Conn v. Conn,
58 Iowa 747, 13 N. W. 51 (holding that
where a wife mortgaged her homestead, in-
cluding her share inherited from a deceased
child, and the mortgage was subsequently
foreclosed, the purchaser at the mortgage
sale became a tenant in common with the
surviving heirs, and could not acquire a tax
title to the prejudice of his cotenants; and
an intervener holding under a quitclaim deed
from him had no better right) ; Phipps v.
Phipps, 47 Kan. 328, 27 Pac. 972.
98. Illinois. — Brown v. Hogle, 30 111. 119,
holding that to become a purchaser of the
[III, D, 2, a]
50 [38 Cyc.j
TENANCY IN COMMON
delinquent/" the rule being based on community of interest in a common title
between parties having a common possession and a common interest in the safety
thereof,' and payment of all taxes by one tenant in common inures to the benefit
of all.^ Where, however, cotenants are permitted to protect their respective
interests by the payment of the taxes thereon, the several interests of the cotenants
may be sold for non-payment of their respective shares of the taxes, although
their cotenants may have paid the taxes on their own respective shares.' Rents
and profits must be applied to the payment of tax claims against the common
property in preference to permitting any statutes of limitations to apply as between
the cotenants.* Where the relation of tenancy in common does not exist at the
time of the acquirement of the outstanding tax title, the rule does not apply,^
and one owning an undivided interest in land, adversely claiming title to the
whole and being in actual possession thereof, may purchase a tax title without
common property for his exclusive benefit
after permitting it to be sold for taxes, is
fraud on the part of such purchaser.
Iowa. — ^Van Ormer v. Harley, 102 Iowa
150, 71 N. W. 241.
Michigan. — Dubois v. Campau, 24 Mich.
360.
Minnesota. — Holterhoff v. Mead, 36 Minn.
42, 29 N. W. 675, holding that one of two
cotenants of lands sold at foreclosure sale,
having acquired a legal title thereto on an
undertaking with his cotenant that it should
be held for the common benefit, cannot divest
the latter of his equity in the lands by a tax
title, acquired at his own request through a
third person with money furnished by him-
self.
Mississippi. — Cohea t . Hemingway, 7 1
Miss. 22, 14 So. 734, 42 Am. St. Rep. 449;
Hardy v. Gregg, (1887) 2 So. 358.
Texas. — Branch v. Makeig, 9 Tex. Civ. App.
399, 28 S. W. 1050.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 60 et seq.
Vendue title does not revive tenancy in
common that had been previously severed in
fact. Willard v. Strong, 14 Vt. 532, 39 Am.
Dec. 240.
Where a statute declares that a tax title
can only be attacked for actual fraud, a
tenant in common in possession with his fel-
lows may purchase such title and hold it, at
law, as against them. Mills v. Tukey, 22
Cal. 373, 83 Am. Dee. 74.
99. Phipps V. Phipps, 47 Kan. 328, 27
Pac. 972; Delashmutt v. Parrent, 39 Kan.
548, 18 Pac. 712; Dubois v. Campau, 24
Mich. 360.
1. Hoyt V. Lightbody, 98 Minn. 189, 108
N. W. 843, 116 Am. St. Rep. 358.
Even where there is a statute, which if
literally construed might be taken to avoid
this rule, such statute is usually liberally
construed in favor of the non-redeeming co-
tenants, and the rule upheld. Alexander v.
Light, 112 La. 925, 36 So. 806; Hoyt v.
Lightbody, 98 Minn. 189, 108 N. W. 843, 116
Am. St. Rep. 358; Easton v. Scofield, 66
Minn. 425, 69 N. W. 326; Smith r. Smith,
150 N. C. 81, 63 S. E. 177; Clark v. Lindsay,
47 Ohio St. 437, 25 N. E. 422, 9 L. R. A. 740;
Barrett v. McCarty, 20 S. D. 75, 104 N. W.
907. Such statutes, however, have not always
been so liberally construed in favor of co-
[m, D, 2, a]
tenants as where the statute declares that
deeds for taxes can be attacked only for
actual fraud, and it has been held that
under statutes declaring a tax deed duly
executed prima facie evidence of all facts
stated therein, or giving conclusive eflFect to
tax deeds, the statute must prevail at law,
although in equity the purchase might be re-
garded as a trust. Johns v. Johns, 93 Ala.
239, 9 So. 419; Mills v. Tukey, 22 Cal. 373,
83 Am. Dec. 74.
2. West Chicago Park Com'rs t". Coleman,
108 111. 591; Chickering v. Faile, 38 lU. 342;
Davis V. King, 87 Pa. St. 261.
Mere lapse of time does not vary the rule.
White V. Beckwith, 62 Conn. 79, 25 Atl. 400.
The one in possession should pay the taxes.
Cole V. Cole, 57 Misc. (N. Y.) 490, 108 N. Y.
Suppl. 124. Compare Oglesby v. Hollister,
76 Cal. 136, 18 Pac. 146, 9 Am. St. Rep. 177.
A tenant in common for life is bound to
pay according to the proportion of his in-
terest in the life-tenancy. Anderson v.
Greble, 1 Ashm. (Pa.) 136.
3. Ronkendorflf v. Taylor, 4 Pet. (U. S.)
349, 7 L. ed. 882.
4. Bender v. Stewart, 75 Ind. 88; Minter
v. Durham, 13 Oreg. 470, 11 Pac. 231; Davis
V. Chapman, 24 Fed. 674.
5. Howe V. Howe, 90 Iowa 582, 58 N. W.
908; Davis v. Cass, 72 Miss. 985, 18 So. 454;
Willard v. Strong, 14 Vt. 532, 39 Am. Dee.
240. See also Stoll v. Griffith, 41 Wash. 37,
82 Pac. 1025.
Tax title before creation of cotenancy. —
Where a presumption of death arose and
some of the heirs of the supposed deceased
asserted a title against their coheirs in pos-
session and holding under a tax title obtained
before the arising of said presumption, it
was held that those in possession will be
protected therein. Webster v. Webster, 55
111. 325. Where a purchaser of tax title
assigns his tax certificate to one who
subsequent to such assignment becomes a
tenant in common, such assignee is not barred
from claiming the benefit of such assignment,
except as he may be estopped from taking
title thereunder to the prejudice of his co-
tenants. Flinn v. McKinley, 44 Iowa 68;
Weare v. Van Meter, 42 Iowa 128, 20 Am.
Rep. 616. Compare Hoyt v. Lightbody, 98
Minn. 189, 108 N. W. 843, 116 Am. St. Rep.
358.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 51
its inuring to the benefit of his alleged cotenant." Where neither an alleged
cotenant, nor any one in privity with him, questions the validity of the tax deed,
the deed will not be declared void merely on the ground of tenancy in common.'
It is not necessary that a tenant in common, seeking to avail himself of possession
and payment of taxes by his cotenant should show, to establish the fact of his
cotenancy, that the conveyance under which said cotenants claim passed an
absolute title.'
b. Contribution; Lien. Each cotenant being, in the absence of statute or
agreement, equally bound to keep the taxes paid, one paying all is entitled to
reimbursement with interest according to the respective proportionate shares
of the cotenants," and one tenant in common who redeems the property from
taxes or purchases a tax title has a claim against his coowners for contribution
according to their respective shares,^" even though the land was not listed for
6. Willcuts V. Rollins, 85 Iowa 247, 52
N. W. 199. See also Alexander v. Sully, 50
Iowa 192.
7. Burgett f. Williford, 56 Ark. 187, 19
S. W. 750, 35 Am. St. Rep. 96; Boynton f.
Veldman, 131 Mich. 555, 91 N. W. 1022;
Miller v. Donahue, 96 Wis. 498, 71 N. W.
900.
8. West Chicago Park Com'rs v. Coleman,
108 111. 591.
9. Arkansas. — Haines v. McGlone, 44
Ark. 79.
Illinois. — Cheney 4\ Ricks, 187 111. 171, 58
N. E. 234; Morgan v. Herrick, 21 111.
481 ; Glos V. Clark, 97 111. App. 609 [reversed
on other grounds in 199 111. 147, 65 N. E.
135].
Indiana. — Schissel i". Dickson, 129 Ind.
139, 28 N. E. 540; Eads v. Retherford, 114
Ind. 273, 16 N. E. 587, 5 Am. St. Rep. 611.
Iowa. — Hipp V. Crenshaw, (1883) 17 N. W.
660; Flinn v. McKinley, 44 Iowa 68; Oliver
t. Montgomery, 39 Iowa 601.
Kentucky. — Montgomery v. Montgomery,
119 Ky. 761, 78 S. W. 465, 80 S. W. 1108,
25 Ky. L. Rep. 1682.
Massachusetts. — Dewing v. Dewing, 165
Mass. 230, 42 N. E. 1128; Hurley t. Hurley,
148 Mass. 444, 19 N. E. 545, 2 L. R. A. 172;
Kites V. Church, 142 Mass. 586, 8 N. E. 743.
Minnesota. — Hoyt f. Lightbody, 98 Minn.
189, 108 N. W. 843, 116 Am. St. Rep. 358;
Van Brunt f. Gordon, 53 Minn. 227, 54 N. W.
1118.
Missouri. — Bates v. Hamilton, 144 Mo. 1,
45 S. W. 641, 66 Am. St. Rep. 407; Stephens
V. Ells, 65 Mo. 456.
New York. — Arthur v. Arthur, 76 N. Y.
App. Div. 330, 78 N. Y. Suppl. 486; Cole v.
Cole, 57 Misc. 490, 108 N. Y. Suppl. 124;
McAlear t. Delaney, 19 N. Y. Wkly. Dig.
252.
Pennsylvania. — Devlin's Estate, 5 Pa.
Dist. 125, 17 Pa. Co. Ct. 433, 12 Montg. Co.
L. Rep. 126.
Virginia. — Lagorio v. Dozier, 91 Va. 4S2,
22 S. E. 239, holding that such payment
being but the performance of a duty, no
ouster can be inferred therefrom. But see
Downey v. Strouse, 101 Va. 226, 43 S. E.
348.
United States. — McClintock v. Fontaine,
119 Fed. 448.
Contribution to remainder-men. — A tenant
in common of an estate in expectancy has no
right to demand contribution of his coten-
ants therein for discharging a lien on the
estate in the hands of a life-tenant except
where such discharge is necessary to prevent
a destruction of the expectancy, and if such
payment is so necessary then the fact that
the paying remainder-men reside with the
life-tenant is immaterial. Harrison v. Har-
rison, 56 Miss. 174; Zapp f. Miller, 109
N. Y. 51, 15 N. E. 889.
A tenant in common who has paid the en-
tire purchase-price and is in possession, col-
lecting the rents and profits and not ac-
counting therefor, is not bound to pay the
taxes assessed to his cotenant. Oglesby v.
Hollister, 76 Cal. 136, 18 Pac. 146, 9 Am.
St. Rep. 177.
10. Alaiama. — Donnor v. Quartermas, 90
Ala. 164, 8 So. 715, 24 Am. St. Rep. 778.
Arkansas. — Cocks v. Simmons, 55 Ark. 104,
17 S. W. 594, 29 Am. St. Rep. 28.
District of Columbia. — ^Alexander v. Doug-
lass, 6 D. C. 247.
Florida.— yHiWia.ras v. Clyatt, 53 Fla. 987,
43 So. 441.
Illinois. — Burgett v. Taliaferro, 118 111.
503, 9 N. E. 334.
Indiana. — Schissel v. Dickson, 129 Ind. 139,
28 N. E. 540; Eads V. Retherford, 114 Ind.
273, 16 N. E. 587, 5 Am. St. Rep. 611; Hat-
field V. Mahoney, 39 Ind. App. 499, 79 N. E.
408, 1086.
loicu. — Phillips V. Wilmarth, 98 Iowa 32,
66 N. W. 1053; Austin v. Barrett, 44 Iowa
488; Flinn v. McKinley, 44 Iowa 68; Oliver
V. Montgomery, 39 Iowa 601.
Kentucky. — Montgomery v. Montgomery,
119 Ky. 761, 78 S. W. 465, 80 S. W. 1108, 25
Ky. L. Rep. 1682.
Louisiana. — ^Hake v. Lee, 106 La. 482, 31
So. 54.
Maine. — Williams t. Gray, 3 Me. 20Y, 14
Am. Dec. 234.
Massachusetts. — Hurley f. Hurley, 148
Mass. 444, 19 N. E. 545, 2 L. R. A. 172.
Mississippi. — Davidson v. Wallace, 53 Miss.
475.
New Jersey. — Roll v. Everett, 73 N. J.
Eq. 697, 71 Atl. 263.
OAio.— Clark v. Lindsey, 47 Ohio St. 437,
25 N. E. 422, 9 L. R. A. 740.
[Ill, D, 2, b]
52 [38 CycJ
TENANCY IN COMMON
assessment according to technical accuracy;" but if an assessment be void, the
payment thereof by one tenant in common creates no liability on the part of
the non-paying cotenants.'^ The cotenant paying a valid tax claim is entitled to
hold the common property till the cotenants pay their proportionate part of such
expenditures," being entitled to a lien upon the property untU full contribution,"
which should include not merely the amount necessary to redeem from the tax,
but all proper expenses growing out of the proceeding.'^ The right does not
attach to the refund of a tax assessment paid on the joint property during the
partnership of the cotenants therein;'" and the right to contribution or reim-
bursement cannot be enforced when such claim would be inconsistent with a
former act of the claimant of such a character as under the circumstances ought
to prevent or estop him from claiming said right; " or as against a purchaser
without notice of the right to make such a claim, nor can such a claim be made
a charge upon the land; '' and where a cotenant having purchased the common
Tennessee. — Gass v. Waterhouse, (Ch. App.
1900) 61 S. W. 4S0.
Vermont. — Wilmot v. Hurlburt, 67 Vt. 671,
32 Atl. 861.
Wisconsin. — Allen v. Allen, 114 Wis. 615,
91 N. W. 218.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 60.
Such claim may be enforced in equity.
Fritz r. Eamspott, 76 Minn. 489, 79 N. W.
520; Richards v. Richards, 31 Pa. Super. Ct.
509. Therefore, where a tenant in common
seeks to have a tax deed for the common
property to a cotenant set aside as a cloud
on the title, he is compelled to tender to his
cotenant holding said deed the amount paid
for him in redemption of the land, together
with taxes subsequently paid thereon with
interest. Koboliska v. Swehla, 107 Iowa 124,
77 N. W. 576; Farmers' Nat. Bank r. Robin-
son, (Kan. 1898) 53 Pac. 762; Morris ■;;.
Roseberry, 46 W. Va. 24, 32 S. E. 1019. The
tender need not be more than the share due
from Mm so tendering. Winter v. Atkinson,
28 La. Ann. 650.
Writ of entry. — Until the tender of his
share of taxes by a cotenant he cannot main-
tain a writ of entry against the cotenant so
paying the taxes. Watkins v. Eaton, 30 Me.
529, 50 Am. Dec. 637.
Limitations will not run against the coten-
ants until refusal to contribute. Phillips v.
Wilmarth, 98 Iowa 32, 66 N. W. 1053.
The lien may be enforced against a grantee
of a cotenant who takes title by a quitclaim
deed. Young v. Bigger, 73 Kan. 146, 84
Pac. 747.
11. Eads i\ Retherford, 114 Ind. 273, 16
N. E. 587, 5 Am. St. Rep. 611.
12. Eads V. Retherford, 114 Ind. 273, 16
N. E. 587, 5 Am. St. Rep. 611; Cole t. Cole,
57 Misc. (N. Y.) 490, 108 N. Y. Suppl. 124.
13. Hurley v. Hurley, 148 Mass. 444, 19
N. E. 545, 2 L. R. A. 172; Wilmot v. Lathrop,
67 Vt. 671, 32 Atl. 861.
14. Arkansas. — -Moore v. Woodall, 40 Ark.
42.
Illinois. — Wilton f. Tazwell, 86 111. 29;
Phelps V. Reeder, 39 111. 172.
Indiana. — Ryason v. Dunten, 164 Ind. 85,
73 N. E. 74.
loim. — Hipp V. Crenshaw, (1883) 17
[III. D, 2, b]
N". W. 660; Stover v. Cory, 53 Iowa 708, 6
N. W. 64; Oliver v. Montgomery, 42 Iowa 36.
Massachusetts. — Hurley i". Hurley, 148
Mass. 444, 19 N. E. 545, 2 L. R. A. 172.
New Jersey. — Roll v. Everett, 73 X. J. Eq.
697, 71 Atl. 263; Thiele v. Thiele, 57 N. J.
Eq. 98, 40 Atl. 446.
OAio.— Clark v. Lindsey, 47 Ohio St. 437,
25 N. E. 422, 9 L. R. A. 740.
Tennessee. — Tisdale r. Tisdale, 2 Sneed
596, 64 Am. Dec. 775.
Texas. — Branch v. Makeig, 9 Tex. Civ.
App. 399, 28 S. W. 1050.
Washington. — Stone c. Marshall, 52 Wash.
375, 100 Pac. 858.
Wisconsin. — Saladin l. Kraayvanger, 96
Wis. 180, 70 2Sr. W. 1113.
United States. — McClintock v. Fontaine,
119 Fed. 448.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 61.
Payment of taxes as sole owner. — Pay-
ment of taxes in the capacity of sole owner
by one believing himself to be such owner
does not entitle him to a lien. Van Ormer v.
Harley, 102 Iowa 150, 71 N. W. 241; O'Hara
V. Quinn, 20 R. I. 176, 38 Atl. 7.
15. Alexander v. Douglass, 6 D. C. 247;
Fallon f. Chidester, 46 Iowa 588, 26 Am. Rep
164; Clark v. Lindsev, 47 Ohio St. 437, 25
N. E. 422, 9 L. R. A. 740; Allen i: Allen, 114
Wis. 615, 91 N. W. 218.
16. Clark v. Piatt, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 670,
58 N. Y. Suppl. 361; Council r. Welch, 101
Wis. 8, 76 N. W. 596.
17. Van Ormer r. Harley, 102 Iowa 150,
71 N. W. 241; Wistar's Appeal, 125 Pa. St.
526, 17 Atl. 460, U Am. St. Rep. 917; O'Hara
V. Quinn, 20 R. I. 176, 38 Atl. 7.
Where persons, claiming adversely, paid
taxes they cannot seek reimbursement from
their cotenants after their cotenants' right
has been established in ejectment, as the pay-
ment will be presumed to have been made in
the right of said adverse claimants and for
their own benefit. Wistar's Appeal, 125
Pa. St. 526, 17 Atl. 460, 11 Am. St. Rep. 917.
18. Stover v. Cory, 53 Iowa 708, 6 N. W.
64. Compare Oliver v. Montgomery, 42 Iowa
36.
Such equities are inferior to that of a
bona fide mortgagee after the purchase of
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 53
property under a decree of partition and subsequently paid taxes constituting
a lien thereon, it is held that such payment having been made by him in the
character of purchaser and not of cotenant, he is not entitled to contribution."
The claim for contribution may be pleaded as a set-off in an action between the
cotenants.^"
3. Purchasing Cotenant's Interest. Although a tenant in common may not
buy an outstanding paramount title so as to oust his cotenant, yet there is no
reason why he may not buy in the independent interest of another tenant in
common,^* and a purchase by one cotenant of the interest of another does not
inure to the benefit of all the remaining tenants in common.^^ The tenant of a
tenant in common is not estopped from purchasing the titles of the other
cotenants.^'
E. Repairs, Improvements, and Expenses For Care and Manage-
ment of Property — l. Duty and Right to Repair. Tenants in common are
not as such agents for each other, nor are they bound to protect each other's
interests and to prevent them from deteriorating in value; the duty to repair is
equal; ^* and where a cotenant improves the common property at his own expense,
thereby putting it to its only beneficial use, he is not liable to his cotenant for
trespass.^^ If there be authority, by agreement or otherwise, to improve the
property at the expense of the cotenants therein, then the cotenant so improving
will be entitled to contribution from his cotenants if he act prudently and in good
faith; and under such circumstances the cotenant so improving will not be held
responsible to the others for mere errors of judgment either as to the character
of the improvement or the construction thereof.^*
2. Contribution For Expenses ; Services — a. Rule Stated. Tenants in
common are not ordinarily entitled to charge each other for services rendered in
the care and management of the common property, in the absence of statute or
special agreement to the contrary, or of such facts as evidence a mutual under-
the whole property at a. tax-sale by one ten-
ant in common. Atkinson r. Hewett, 63 Wis.
396, 23 N. W. 889.
19. Stephens v. Ells, 65 Mo. 456.
20. Fritz V. Eamspott, 76 Minn. 489, 79
N. W. 520; Kean f. Connelly, 25 Minn. 222,
23 Am. Eep. 458; Starks v. Kirsehgraber,
134 Mo. App. 211, 113 S. W. 1149; Schneider
Granite Co. v. Taylor, 64 Mo. App. 37.
21. Snell V. Harrison, 104 Mo. 158, 16
S. W. 152; Woodlief v. Woodlief, 136 N. C.
133, 48 S. E. 583.
22. First Nat. Bank v. Bissell, 4 Fed. 694,
2 McCrary 73 laffirmed in 114 U. S. 252, 5
S. Ct. 851, 29 L. ed. 126].
Buying at public sale. — The doctrine that
» purchase cf an outstanding title by one
joint tenant will be held to be for the benefit
of his cotenants, and not adverse to them,
has no application to a case where the tenant
buys the interests of his cotenants at a public
sale, and thereby obtains or attempts and
claims to obtain their title. Peck v. Lock-
ridge, 97 Mo. 549, 11 S. W. 246. Com/pwre
Quaekenbush v. Leonard, 9 Paige (N. Y.)
334.
23. Catlin -c. Kidder, 7 Vt. 12.
24. Wolfe V. Childs, 42 Colo. 121, 94 Pac.
292, 126 Am. St. Rep. 152; Adams v. Man-
ning, 51 Conn. 5; Taylor v. Baldwin, 10 Barb.
(N. Y.) 582 [affirmed in 10 Barb. 626]; Moss
V. Rose, 27 Oreg. 595, 41 Pac. 666, 50 Am. St.
Rep. 743.
The tenant in possession should pay for
ordinary repairs. Cole v. Cole, 57 Misc.
(N. Y.) 490, 108 N. Y. Suppl. 124.
Statutory power in selectmen for the mak-
ing of repairs to mills, mill-dams, or flumes
owned by cotenancy when the privilege of the
water is so owned, and to charge the repairs
in proportion to the respective interests of
the cotenants, must be strictly exercised, and
does not empower the selectmen either to
make such repairs or assessments other than
by statute provided, or as against any one
not especially in such statute designated.
Roberts v. Peavey, 27 N. H. 477.
25. Johnson v. Conant, 64 N. H. 109, 7
Atl. 116.
26. Nelson v. Clay, 7 J. J. Marsh. (Kj^.)
138, 23 Am. Dec. 387; Holt v. Couch, 125
N. C. 456, 34 S. E. 703, 74 Am. St. Rep.
648 ; Reed v. Jones, 8 Wis. 421.
The care required to be exercised in rela-
tion to tne common property, if movable, is
analogous to that of a bailee without hire;
that is, ordinary care; it is not enough to
show that the one in possession used the
same care as he did in regard to his separate
property, as there is no evidence as to
whether or not such care amounted to ordi-
nary care. Guillot v. Dossat, 4 Mart. (La.)
203, 6 Am. Dee. 702.
A declaration to a disinterested person by
the tenant in common operating the common
property that he is doing so entirely at his
own expense is not sutiicient to prove a con-
tract on his part not to make any demand
[III, E. 2, a]
54 [38 Cyc]
TENANCY IN COMMON
standing that such payment shall be made." But one cotenant by agreement,
express or implied, with the other may become entitled to contribution for services
rendered or expenditures made in the management and care of the common
property,^' and a tenant in common is held to be entitled to contribution for
expenditures absolutely necessary for the benefit and preservation of the common
for such expenditures against his cotenants.
Danforth v. Moore, 55 N. J. Eq. 127, 35 Atl.
410.
27. Arkansas. — Dunavant f. Fields, 68
Ark. 534, 60 S. W. 420, holding that a dev-
isee was entitled to reimbursement for act-
ual expenses in making improvements, but
not for his services in so doing in the ab-
sence of an agreement therefor.
Florida. — Anderson f. Northrop, 44 Fla.
472, 33 So. 419; Fuller v. Fuller, 23 Fla. 236,
2 So. 426.
Maryland. — Hamilton v. Conine, 28 Md.
635, 92 Am. Dec. 724.
Michigan. — Gay v. Berkey, 137 Mich. 658,
100 N. W. 920.
New Jersey. — Switzer v. Switzer, 57 N. J.
Eq. 421, 41 Atl. 486; Hattersiey v. Bissett,
52 N. J. Eq. 693, 30 Atl. 86.
New York. — Barry v. Colville, 129 N. Y.
302, 29 N. E. 307 [affirming 13 N. Y. Suppl.
4]; Central Trust Go. v. New York Equip-
ment Co., 87 Hun 421, 34 N. Y. Suppl. 349;
Cole V. Cole, 57 Misc. 490, 108 X. Y. Suppl.
124; Franklin t. Robinson, 1 Johns. Ch. 157.
Pennsylvania. — Croasdale v. Von Boyne-
burgk, 206 Pa. St. 15, 55 Atl. 770; Thomp-
son V. Newton, 8 Pa. Cas. 118, 7 Atl. 64, oil
wells.
Vermont. — Redfield v. Gleason, 61 Vt. 220,
17 Atl. 1075, 15 Am. St. Rep. 889.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 93.
28. Alabama. — 'Russell v. Russell, 62 Ala.
48; Strother v. Butler, 17 Ala. 733.
California. — Thompson r. Salmon, 18 Cal.
632.
Illinois.— Mi^ v. White, 36 111. 484; Haven
V. Mehlgarten, 19 111. 91, holding that absent
cotenants of a ferry privilege, which required
the owners to construct and maintain the
ferry in proper repair for public use, having
knowledge of repairs made thereon and no
demand having been made upon them for
payment therefor, are liable to contribute
toward such repairs made by their cotenants.
loica. — Sears v. Munson, 23 Iowa 380.
Louisiana. — -Percy v. Millaudon, 6 Mart.
N. S. 616, 17 Am. Dec. 196.
juatrae.^- Jordan v. Soule, 79 Me. 590, 12
Atl. 786.
Maryland. — Eanstead v. Eanstead, 74 Md.
378, 22 Atl. 405.
Massachusetts. — Carroll i. Carroll, 188
Mass. 558, 74 N. E. 913; Wheeler v. Wheeler,
111 Mass. 247 (an agreement by heirs to live
together on the estate, and pay the debts,
taxes, and expenses of the common living) ;
Field V. Craig, 8 Allen 357; Dodge v. Wilkin-
son, 3 Mete. 292; Gardner r. Cleveland, 9
Pick. 334; Gwinneth v. Thompson, 9 Pick.
31, 19 Am. Dec. 350; Converse v. Ferre, 11
Mass. 325.
Michigan. — Gay v. Berkey, 137 Mich. 658,
[III, E, 2, a]
100 N. W. 920; Boyce v. Boyce, 124 Mich.
696, 83 N. W. 1013.
Minnesota. — Oliver v. Hedderly, 32 Minn.
455, 21 N. W. 478.
New York. — Matter of Robinson, 40 N. Y.
App. Div. 23, 57 N. Y. Suppl. 502 ; Gedney v.
Gedney, 19 N. Y. App. Div. 407, 46 N. Y.
Suppl. 590 [affirmed in 160 N. Y. 471, 55
N. E. 1]; Moore i-. Erie R. Co., 7 Lans. 39;
Grannis v. Cook, 3 Thomps. & C. 299; Cole
V. Cole, 57 Misc. 490, 108 N. Y. Suppl. 124.
Tennessee. — Gass v. Waterhouse, (Ch.
App. 1900) 61 S. W. 450.
Vermont. — Redfield v. Gleason, 61 Vt. 220,
17 Atl. 1075, 15 Am. St. Rep. 889; Fisher v.
Kinaston, 18 Vt. 489; Kidder v. Rixford, 16
Vt. 169, 42 Am. Dec. 504.
Wisconsin. — Clark v. Plummer, 31 Wis.
442.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," i§ 93, 97.
On an agreement between cotenants that
one of them should make a sale of the com-
mon property and receive a commission, it
was held that he was entitled to the commis-
sion upon his being the procuring cause of
the sale. McCreery v. Green, 38 Mich. 172.
Such an agreement is usually liberally con-
strued (Gould V. Hayne, 54 Fed. 951. See
also Beezley r. Crossen, 14 Oreg. 473, 13 Pac.
306) in the light of the relationship ex-
isting between them. Thus, an agreement
between tenants in common to work the land
for one third of the proceeds will be construed
to be an agreement of hire and not of lease.
Moreland v. Strong, 115 Mich. 211, 73 N. W.
140, 69 Am. St. Rep. 553. An agreement by
two tenants in common to share the ex-
pense of fencing includes expenses of a
survey necessary to determine the boundary
of the land. Gould v. Hayne, supra. But
there is no recovery for the expense of in-
creasing the size of a flume without a contract
therefor. Middlebury Electric Co. v. Tupper,
70 Vt. 603, 41 Atl. 582.
Interest. — Where there is an agreement
that from the proceeds of a sale the expendi-
tures made by the tenants in common,
respectively, on the property shall first be
paid to them respectively, as debts, such ex-
penditures will not bear interesrt from the
time when they were made to the time of
such agreement. Danforth v. Moore, 55 N. J.
Eq. 127, 35 Atl. 410.
Where several persons purchase an estate
to be held in common, and one pays the pur-
chase-money, the one so paying is entitled to
sustain a bill for contribution or may set up
such claim in mitigation of damages. Mix i'.
White, 36 111. 484; Higham t. Harris, 108
Ind. 246, 8 N. E. 255; Brown f. Budd, 2
Ind. 442; Burrell v. Bull, 3 Sandf. Ch.
(X. Y.) 15; Whitehead r. Jones, 197 Pa. St.
511, 47 Atl. 978. But such right does not
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cye,] 55
property,*" and the right is even extended to charge the cotenant with a just
proportion of the reasonable expenses incurred fairly and in good faith for the
accrue until suit for partition, until which
time limitations does not apply. Grove v.
Grove, 100 Va. 556, 42 S. E. 312; Ballou c.
Ballou, 94 Va. 350, 26 S. E. 840, 64 Am. St.
Rep. 733; Tompkins t;. Mitchell, 2 Eand.
(Va.) 428.
A claim for repairs to the common estate
after the death of a cotenant cannot be prose-
cuted against the decedent's estate, but it
may be prosecuted against the decedent's
heirs or personal representatives. Sears i;.
Munson, 23 Iowa 380; De Grange %. De
Grange, 96 Md. 609, 54 Atl. 663.
Set-off. — Where a judgment is obtained un-
der a contract for payment for services in
relation to the common land, out of the sale
thereof, and there is a set-off by some of the
cotenants to said claim, the judgment should
provide for an allowance of such set-off. Cot-
ton 1-. Eand, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 51 S. W.
55; Galveston, etc., E. Co. r. Stockton, 15
Tex. Civ. App. 145, 38 S. W. 647; Vermont
L. & T. Co. V. Cardin, 19 Wash. 304, 53 Pac.
164.
Limitations. — A claim of a cotenant for
services, under an express contract authoriz-
ing him to deduct a certain sum in the fall
of each year from the rents of the common
property for his services, *ithout right to
incur any debts against the common prop-
erty, was subject to limitations. Rosamond
V. Eoaamond, (Tex. Civ. App. 1909) 120
S. W. 520.
29. Arkansas. — Dunavant v. Fields, 68
Ark. 534, 60 S. W. 420; Bowman v. Pettit,
68 Ark. 126, 56 S. W. 780.
Illimois. — - Gardner l". Diederichs, 41 111.
158; Haven v. Mehlgarten, 19 111. 91; Griffith
f. Robinson, 14 111. App. 377.
Iowa. — Sullivan t". Brennan, 94 Iowa 743,
63 N. W. 678.
Kentucky. — Hotopp v. Morrison Lodge No.
76, 110 Ky. 987, 63 S. W. 44, 23 Ky. L. Eep.
418; Vermillion v. Nickell, (1908) 114 S. W.
270.
Louisiana. — Percy v. Millaudon, 6 Mart.
N. S. 616, 17 Am. Dec. 196.
Maine. — Williams v. Coombs, 88 Me. 183,
33 Atl. 1073.
Massachusetts. — Dodge v. Wilkinson, 3
Mete. 292; Gwinneth f. Thompson, 9 Pick.
31, 19 Am. Dec. 350.
THew York. — Gedney v. Gedney, 19 N. Y.
App. Div. 407, 46 N. Y. Suppl. 590 [affirmed
in 160 N. Y. 471, 55 N. E. 1]; Grannis v.
Cook, 3 Thomps. & C. 299. See also Wood
V. Merritt, 2 Bosw. 368.
Pennsylvania. — Dech's Appeal, 57 Pa. St.
467 ; Devlin's Estate, 5 Pa. Dist. 125, 17 Pa.
Co. Ct. 433, 12 Montg. Co. Rep. 126.
Philippine. — Trinidad v. Ricafort, 7 Philip-
pine 449.
Rhode Island. — Raftery v. Monahan, 22
E. I. 558, 48 Atl. 940.
TeiBas.— Cotton v. Coit, (Civ. App. 1895)
30 S. W. 281 [reversed on other grounds in
88 Tex. 414, 31 S. W. 1061].
Vermont.— Strong v. Hunt, 20 Vt. 614.
Wisconsin. — Stewart V. Stewart, 90 Wis.
516, 63 N. W. 886, 48 Am. St. Eep. 949;
Clark V. Plummer, 31 Wis. 442.
England.— In re Cook, [1896] 1 Ch. 923;
65 L. J. Ch. 654, 74 L. T. Eep. N. S. 652, 44
Wkly. Rep. 646.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 97.
But see Stickley r. Mulrooney, 36 Colo.
242, 87 Pac. 547, holding a cotenant not en-
titled to contribution out of a fund in court
paid on an order of court in an action for
an accounting for expenditures made in rela-
tion to the common property after such pay-
ment into court.
Where costs are incurred by a tenant in
common in a necessary and proper suit for
the benefit of the common property or the
owners thereof in common as such, he is en-
titled to contribution. Bowman v. Pettit, 68
Ark. 126, 56 S. W. 780; Estill v. Francis, 89
S. W. 172, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 225; Gregg v.
Patterson, 9 Watts & S. (Pa.) 197; McClin-
tock V. Fontaine, 119 Fed. 448; Gage v. Mul-
holland, 16 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 145. This rule
has been held to apply against one who al-
lowed his cotenant to take the hazards and
labor of litigation relating to the property
owned in common, and accepted the results
of such litigation, even though he did not
want the suit brought or prosecuted, or was
inactive pending its course. Estill v. Fran-
cis, 89 S. W. 172, 28 Ky. L. Eep. 225.
Defending title. — ^A tenant in common in
sole possession will ordinarily be allowed for
necessary counsel fees paid in defending a
suit to protect the property. Hitchcock v.
Skinner, Hoffm. (N. Y.) 21. See also
Hume V. Howard, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 48
S. W. 202. And it has been held that where
moneys have been expended in defending the
title and improving the common property
under an agreement between the cotenants
to pay said expenditures, a lien attaches to
tne common property in favor of the one so
making said expenditures. Bowman f. Pettit,
68 Ark. 126, 56 S. W. 780. But attorneys
employed by part of the tenants in common
of an estate, to protect the estate, cannot re-
cover any part of the compensation from the
others, altnough the services inure to the
benefit of all. Mayfield v. McKnight, (Tenn.
Ch. App. 1899) 56 S. W. 42. A presumption
of law in favor of consent may, however,
arise. Barton v. Gray, 48 Mich. 164, 12
N. W. 30; Taylor v. Baldwin, 10 Barb.
(N. Y.) 582 [affirmed in 10 Barb. 626].
Ky. St. (1903) § 489, allowing costs, fees,
and other expenses incurred by one copar-
cener or joint owner does not apply to ex-
penses incurred in defending the joint title in
unsuccessful suits brought by third persons.
Francis v. Million, 80 S. W. 486, 26 Ky. L.
Rep. 42.
The payment of taxes as ground for con-
tribution see supra. III, D, 2, b.
The cotenant is not entitled to contribu-
tion as a matter of right, but purely from a
[III, E, 2, a]
56 [38 CycJ
TENANCY IN COMMON
benefit of the common property or such as were from necessity dispensed for the
common estate,'" even though the conduct of the paying tenant may not have
been strictly equitable.'^ But one eotenant in common is ordinarily not respon-
sible to his eotenant for the cost of improvements or repairs upon the common
property unless he so agreed or ratified the act of making them or unless it
is shown that the improvements or repairs were absolutely necessary to the
enjoyment or preservation of the property.^^ Where the expenditures do not
Philippine. — Trinidad v. Ricafort, 7 Philip-
pine 449.
Rhode Island. — Raftery f. Monahan, 22
R. I. 558, 48 Atl. 940.
Texas. — Broom i: Pearson, (Civ. App.
1904) 81 S. W. 753 [affirmed in 98 Tex. 469,
86 S. W. 790, 86 S. W. 733] ; Cotton v. Coit,
{Civ. App. 1895) 30 S. W. 281 [reversed
on other grounds in 88 Tex. 414, 31 S. W.
1061].
7ermo»it.— Kidder v. Rixford, 16 Vt. 169,
42 Am. Dec. 504.
Canada. — In re Curry, 25 Ont. App. 267.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 97 et seq.
Where a suit is brought by third parties
because of damages arising out of hona fide
improvements for the benefit of the common
property each eotenant therein must con-
tribute toward the amount of such damage
in proportion to his proprietary interest in
the common property. Dodge v. Wilkinson,
3 Mete. (Mass.) 292.
Money paid to an agent for collection of
rents is allowable as a credit. Collins ■!;. Col-
lins, 8 N. Y. App. Div. 502, 40 N. Y. Suppl.
902.
31. Russell V. Defrance, 39 Mo. 506; Det-
tering i'. Nordstrom, 148 Fed. 81, 78 C. C. A.
157. But see Conrad v. Starr, 50 Iowa 470,
holding that where money had been raised
by ji mortgage for the purpose of improv-
ing the common proper,ty and a tenant ex-
pending the money misapplied it, he could
not recover from his cotenants for any im-
provements he had made.
32. Alahama. — Merchants' Bank v. Foster,
124 Ala. 696, 27 So. 513.
Colorado. — Rico Reduction, etc., Co. v.
Musgrave, 14 Colo. 79, 23 Pac. 458; Neu-
man v. Dreifurst, 9 Colo. 228, 11 Pac.
98.
Georgia. — Bazemore v. Davis, 55 Ga. 504.
Illinois. — Chambers r. Jones, 72 111. 275.
Indiana. — 'Harry v. Harry, 127 Ind. 91,
26 N. E. 562.
Zoito.— Frye v. Gullion, 143 Iowa 719, 121
N. W. 563; Cooper f. Brown, 143 Iowa 482
122 N. W. 144.
Louisiana. — Moreira v. Schwan, 113 La.
643, 37 So. 542 (applying rent of storehouse
toward expense of plaintiff after notice to
cease such application) ; Conrad v. Burbank,
25 La. Ann. 112; Morgan v. Morgan, 23 La.
Ann. 502 ; Becnel v. Becnel, 23 La. Ann. 150 ;
Smith V. Wilson, 10 La. Ann. 255.
Maine. — Reed v. Bachelder, 34 Me. 205.
Massachusetts. — Calvert v. Aldrich, 99
Mass. 74, 96 Am. Dec. 693 ; Doane v. Badger,
12 Mass. 65; Converse v. Perre, 11 Mass.
325 ; Carver v. Miller, 4 Mass. 559.
desire of the court to do justice between all
the parties. Ballou r. Ballon, 94 Va. 350, 26
S. E. 840, 64 Am. St. Rep. 733.
Non-payment of contribution does not con-
stitute abandonment, since contribution is
enforceable. Gosseliu v. Smith, 154 111. 74,
39 N. E. 980.
Tenants in common having warranted the
soundness of the common property sold by
them, one of them, upon the property proving
defective, paying for said defect without suit
is entitled to contribution. Davis t'. Bur-
nett, 49 N. C. 71, 67 Am. Dec. 263.
Woodland or arable land. — The general
rule that tenants in common are entitled to
contribution, as above announced, is said not
to apply to woodland or arable land. Beaty
V. Bordwell, 91 Pa. St. 438; Deeh's Appeal,
57 Pa. St. 467 ; Anderson r. Greble, 1 Ashm.
136; Ward v. Ward, 40 W. Va. 611, 21 S. E.
746, 52 Am. St. Rep. 911, 29 L. R. A. 449.
Ordinarily the husband or wife of the co-
tenant having so expended money is en-
titled to contribution. Perkins v. Smith, 37
S. W. 72, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 509; Chace v. Dur-
fee, 16 R. I. 248, 14 Atl. 919.
Expenses after decease or before cotenancy.
— There can be no claim against the estate
of a deceased eotenant for repairs or im-
provements made on the common property
after his decease ; such a claim, if any, must
be made against his successors in the co-
tenancy (De Grange c. De Grange, 96 Md.
609, 54 Atl. 663), nor can there be any claim
as against cotenants for expenditures before
the commencement in fact of the cotenancy
(Pulse V. Osborn, (Ind. App. 1901) 60 N. E.
374; Lasby v. Crewson, 21 Ont. 255), and so
of repairs made before acquiring title
(Davis V. Sawyer, 66 N. H. 34, 20 Atl.
100).
30. California. — McCord v. Oakland Quick-
silver Min. Co., 64 Cal. 134, 27 Pac. 863,
49 Am. Rep. 686.
Connecticut. — Fowler v. Fowler, 50 Conn.
256.
Haioaii. — Kanakamaikai v. Pahulio, 12
Hawaii 1.
Massachusetts. — Gardner v. Cleveland, 9
Pick. 334; Gwinneth v. Thompson, 9 Pick.
31, 19 Am. Dec. 350.
Michigan. — Loomis v. O'Neal, 73 Mich.
582, 41 N. W. 701.
Mississippi. — Davidson v. Wallace, 53
Miss. 475.
New Jersey. — Lloyd v. Turner, 70 N. J.
Eq. 425, 62 Atl. 771.
North Carolina. — Peyton f. Smith, 22
N. C. 325.
Pennsylvania. — Anderson v. Greble, 1
Ashm. 136.
[Ill, E, 2, a]
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cye.J 57
inure to the common benefit of the common estate there is no contribution.'^
Where a tenant in common may recover contribution for necessary repairs, it is
Michigan. — Stackable v. Stackable, 65
Mich. 515, 32 N. W. 808.
Minnesota. — Walter v. Greenwood, 29 Minn.
87, 12 N.. W. 145.
Mississippi. — Bennett v. Bennett, 84 Miss.
493, 36 So. 452.
Missouri. — Picot f. Page, 26 Mo. 398.
Nevada. — Welland v. Williams, 21 Nev.
230, 29 Pac. 403.
New Hampshire. — Wiggin v. Wiggin, 43
X. H. 561, 80 Am. Dee. 192; Stevens v.
Thompson, 17 N. H. 103.
New York. — Havey v. Kelleher, 36 N. Y.
App. Div. 201, 56 N. Y. Suppl. 889 (erecting
buildings as a private business venture with-
out consent of cotenanta, and insuring the
common property in his own name) ; Myers
f. Bolton, 89 Hun 342, 35 N. Y. Suppl. 577;
Coakley v. Mahar, 36 Hun 157; Ford f.
Knapp, 31 Hun 522 [.reversed on other
grounds in 102 N. Y. 135, 6 N. E. 283, 55
Am. Eep. 782] ; Scott v. Guernsey, 60 Barb.
163 [affirmed in 48 N. Y. 106]; Taylor v.
Baldwin, 10 Barb. 582 [affirmed in 10 Barb.
626]; Cole v. Cole, 57 Misc. 490, 108 N. Y.
Suppl. 124; Mumford v. Brown, 6 Cow. 475,
16 Am. Dec. 440.
Oregon. — Beezley v. Crossen, 14 Oreg. 473,
13 Pae. 306.
Pennsylvania. — Dech's Appeal, 57 Pa. St.
467; Crest v. Jack, 3 Watts 238, 27 Am.
Dec. 353; Devlin's Estate, 5 Pa. Dist. 125,
17 Pa. Co. Ct. 433, 12 Montg. Co. L. Eep.
126.
Philippine. — Javier v. Javier, 6 Philip-
pine 493.
South Carolina. — Thurston v. Dickinson, 2
Rich. Eq. 317, 46 Am. Dee. 56; Hancock f.
Day, McMull. Eq. 298; Thompson v. Bostick,
McMull. Eq. 75.
Vermont. — Middlebury Electric Co. v.
Tupper, 70 Vt. 603, 41 Atl. 582.
Virginia. — 'Ballou v. Ballou, 94 Va. 350,
26 S. E. 840, 64 Am. St. Eep. 733.
Washington. — Minder i'. Mottaz, 37 Wash.
474, 79 Pac. 996.
West Virginia. — Ward f. Ward, 40' W. Va.
611, 21 S. E. 746, 52 Am. St. Eep. 911, 29
L. R. A. 449.
Wisconsin. — Eeed v. Jones, 8 Wis. 421.
England. — Leigh v. Dickeson, 15 Q. B. D.
60, 54 L. J. Q. B. 18, 52 L. T. Eep. N. S.
790, 33 Wkly. Eep. 538; Hill v. Hickin,
[1897] 2 Ch. 579, 66 L. J. Ch. 717, 77 L. T.
Eep. N. S. 127, 46 Wkly. Eep. 137; In re Cook,
[1896] 1 Ch. 923, 65 L. J. Ch. 654, 74 L. T.
Eep. N. S. 652, 44 Wkly. Rep. 646; In re
Jones, [1893] 2 Ch. 461, 62 L. J. Ch. 996,
■69 L. T. Rep. N. S. 45, 3 Reports 498 ; Heath
17. Bostock, 5 L. J. Exch. 20.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 97 et seq. And see cases cited infra,
this and tlie following notes.
Repairs and improvements made without
the cotenant's consent, and before he ac-
quired title, cannot be made the basis of con-
tribution. Davis V. Sawyer, 66 N. H. 34,
20 Atl. lOO.
Reimbursement for expenditures for im-
mediate necessary repairs to a vessel in a
foreign port see Hill v. Crocker, 87 Me. 208,
32 Atl. 878, 47 Am. St. Rep. 321. Reim-
bursement for money expended for repairs
on a vessel in a home port denied see Benson
V. Thompson, 27 Me. 470, 46 Am. Dec. 617.
Unless the amount of increase in income
is apparent from the evidence no allowance
can be made for such expenditures. Walter
V. Greenwood, 29 Minn. 87, 12 N. W. 145.
Where a cotenant leases his moiety to an-
other, the tenant under the lease cannot, in
an action for partition, charge his landlord
for repairs' made during the tenancy upon
the property, in the absence of a special
agreement for compensation. Schmidt v.
Constans, 82 Minn. 347, 85 N. W. 173, 83
Am. St. Rep. 437. See also Grannis v. Cook,
3 Thomps. & C. (N. Y.) 299.
Tenants in common cannot erect buildings
on the joint or common property, and charge
the other cotenants with their share of the
expense, although they knew of the erecting
and did not object. Crest v. Jack, 3 Watts
(Pa.) 238, 27 Am. Dec. 353; Javier v. Javier,
6 Philippine 493.
An insurance premium, in the absence of
a showing that it was paid for the common
benefit, cannot be the basis of contribution.
Farrand v. Gleason, 56 Vt. S33. A coowner
holding the common property adversely and
insuring it cannot have reimbursement.
Gilroy v. Richards, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 355,
63 S. W. 664.
Clearing a portion of the common land
without the assent or knowledge of the co-
tenant and without substantially benefiting
it thereby see Kidder v. Rixford, 16 Vt. 169,
42 Am. Dec. 504.
Statutes giving compensation for improve-
ments to a defendant are held not to be ap-
plicable to cases of tenancy in common. Mor-
ris r. McKay, 40 Mich. 326 ; Sands v. Davis,
40 Mich. 14; Martin v. O'Conner, 37 Mich.
440; Holt V. Couch, 125 N. C. 456, 34 S. E.
703, 74 Am. St. Eep. 648.
One tenant in common of a mining claim,
who without the consent of the cotenants
incurs expenses in prospecting, cannot de-
mand contribution from the cotenants; but
a tenant operating a mine may, when called
on to account for the profits, set off as
against a non-operating tenant the cost of
improvements, on his showing that the im-
provements were necessary and enhanced the
value of the common property. Wolfe v.
Childs, 42 Colo. 121, 94 Pac. 292, 126 Am.
St. Eep. 152.
33. Pickering v. Pickering, 63 N. H. 468,
3 Atl. 744; Weller v. Rolason, 17 N. J. Eq.
13. But see RuflFners v. Lewis, 7 Leigh (Va.)
720, 30 Am. Dec. 513.
No part of costs, fees, or other expenses
incurred by one cotenant of common property
in relation thereto is chargeable to the other
cotenants in the absence of statute or agree-
ment unless they are for the benefit of the
[III, E, 2, a]
58 [38 Cyc]
TENANCY IN COMMON
held that he cannot do so except on notice and an opportunity to the others to
unite in making the repairs, unless they are made under such circumstances as
excuse a want of notice.^ No distinction is made in regard to the right of a
cotenant to recover contribution for sums expended in making necessary repairs
upon the common property, between one who at the time of making such expendi-
tures had legal title, and one who at that time was in fact the owner of an undivided
portion of the premises, having completed a contract of purchase, agreed upon
all the terms, and gone into possession, but who had not then received his deed.'^
A tenant in common cannot enforce contribution if he asserts ownership of the
entire title as against his cotenants.^'
b. Basis and Amount of Contribution. A cotenant expending more than his
proportionate share under circumstances which entitle him to contribution
may recover from his cotenants ratably the amount of such overpayment,^' and
common property. Haywood f. Daves, 80
N. C. 338; Croasdale f. Von Boyneburgk,
206 Pa. St. 15, 55 Atl. 770; Paine v. Slocum,
66 Vt. 504. See also Rogers c. White, 6
Me. 193. A deed by several tenants in com-
mon in litigation to one of their number in
trust, to take such steps as he shall judge
to be necessary and proper to discharge all
encumbrances upon or claim against the said
land, does not provide, either in express terms
or by necessary implication, for the payment
of the fees of an attorney for services ren-
dered in the litigation. Gordon t. McCulloh,
66 Md. 245, 7 Atl. 457. But where expenses
were incurred in a necessary action of eject-
ment it was held that the tenant in com-
mon so expending moneys and thus gaining
possession would not be compelled to let
his tenants in common into possession of
their undivided moiety until they paid or
tendered him one half of the expense of said
action, and he might retain possession of the
whole. Gregg v. Patterson, 9 Watts & S.
(Pa.) 197.
The repairs or improvements must have
been made for the common benefit. Where
either repairs or improvements are made for
the sole benefit of the person paying there-
for, under the belief on the part of said per-
son that he is the sole owner of the com-
mon property, he is not entitled to contri-
bution. Nahaolelua r. Aaaahu, 10 Hawaii
662; Alleman f. Hawley, 117 Ind. 532, 20
N. E. 441; Becnel v. Becnel, 23 La. Ann. 150
(placing improvements on a plantation to aid
in securing the crop, where one of the com-
mon owners remains on the common prop-
erty and cultivates it) ; Stephens r. Ells, 65
Mo. 456 (purchasing joint property at a
partition sale which at said time is subject
to a lien for taxes, and subsequently paying
said taxes) ; Gregg i. Patterson, 9 Watts
& S. (Pa.) 197 (erecting buildings and mak-
ing valuable improvements by one who be-
lieves that he is the sole owner of the com-
mon property) ; German Sav., etc., Soc. v.
Tull, 136 Fed. 1, 69 C. C. A. 1. See also
Bodkin f. Arnold, 48 W. Va. 108; 35 S. E.
980.
34. Hill V. Crocker, 87 Me. 208, 32 Atl.
878, 47 Am. St. Rep. 321; Benson v. Thomp-
son, 27 Me. 470, 46 Am. Dec. 617; Doane f.
Badger, 12 Mass. 65 ; Stevens v. Thompson,
17 N. H. 103.
[Ill, E, 2, a]
Where, under a statute providing that an
owner of an undivided interest in certain
land may pay his share of the whole tax
thereon and thus relieve his interest from
the tax, such a cobwner pays the tax of a
cotenant's share without request, there is no
contribution. Wilson v. Sanger, 57 N. Y.
App. Div. 323, 68 N. y. Suppl. 124.
35. Williams v. Coombs, 88 Me. 183, 33
Atl. 1073; Dech's Appeal, 57 Pa. St. 467;
Anderson v. Greble, 1 Ashm. (Pa.) 136.
36. Burgett v. Taliaferro, 118 HI. 503, 9
N. E. 334; Foster v. Weaver, 118 Pa. St.
42, 12 Atl. 313, 4 Am. St. Rep. 573; German
Sav., etc., Soc. v. Tull, 136 Fed. 1, 69
C. C. A. 1.
A disseizor, although chargeable with the
rental value of his cotenant's share, whether
or not he has received any rent therefor, is
not entitled to contribution for any improve-
ments. Hannah v. Carver, 121 Ind. 278, 23
X. E. 93; Rippe c. Badger, 125 Iowa 725,
101 N. W. 642, 106 Am. St. Rep. 336 ; Austin
V. Barrett, 44 Iowa 488; Van Denberg v.
Brat, 2 Cai. (N. Y.) 303; Gregg v. Patter-
son, 9 Watts & S. (Pa.) 197. See also Ma-
teer v. Jones, (Tex. Civ. App. 1907) 102
S. W. 734; Strong r. Hunt. 20 Vt. 614;
Stewart r. Stewart, 90 Wis. 516, 63 N. W.
886, 48 Am. St. Rep. 949. But it appears
that where such a disseizor claims the whole
title mistakenly, but in good faith, he is
entitled to an allowance for his improve-
ments from the rents of the common prop-
erty. Duke [. Reed, 64 Tex. 705. It is held
that if a suit is brought by a tenant in com-
mon against a cotenant claiming adversely,
in good faith, for plaintiff's share of the
rental value, such plaintiff is not entitled to
share in the enhanced rental value resulting
from improvements made by defendant.
Carver r. Fennimore, 116 Ind. 236, 19 N E
103. ■ ■
37. Iowa. — Koboliska v. Swehla, 107 Iowa
124, 77 N. W. 576.
Kansas. — Young r. Bigger, 73 Kan. 146,
84 Pac. 747.
Maine. — Rogers r. White, 6 Me. 193.
Massachusetts. — Gwinneth r. Thompson 9
Pick. 31, 19 Am. Dec. 350.
Mississippi. — Bennett v. Bennett, 84 Miss
493, 36 So. 452.
Xeiraska. — Oliver v. Lansins, 57 Nebr
352, 77 N. W. 802. °'
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 59
a tenant in common, being entitled to contribution for services, repairs, and
improvements, is not entitled to have his cotenants contribute therefor more
than their proportionate share, according to the respective interests of the parties;
in the case of improvements to the common property the basis of calculation for
contribution is the value added to the land by the improvements; and if the
added value exceeds the cost, then he is only entitled to have his cotenants con-
tribute their proportionate share of the cost.'* The amount of contribution to
which a tenant in common is entitled will, in the absence of statute or an agreement
to the contrary, be limited to a proportionate share of the benefit derived by his
cotenants from the expenditures for which he is so entitled, provided such
share does not exceed the amount of such expenditures.^" If the expenditures
are made without the consent of the other cotenants, or over their objections,
his reimbursements for such expenditures may be limited to the amount of income
and profit received by him from the common property.^"
e. Right to Contribution as Dependent Upon Sharing Rents and Profits, and
Conversely. Where a tenant in common claims contribution from his cotenants
for improvements made by him, he must share with them the rents and profits
received by him; *^ and, conversely, if he is called upon for an accounting of the
rents and profits, he is entitled to be allowed for advances properly and reason-
ably made by him for repairs and improvements, and for principal and interest
on the encumbrances paid by him, if any, with interest from the time the advances
Virginia. — Grove r. Grove, 100 Va. 556,
42 S. E. 312.
38. Alabama. — Horton v. Sledge, 29 Ala.
478.
Michigan. — Eighmey v. Thayer, 135 Mich.
682, 98 N. W. 734, 66 L. K. A. 915.
Tennessee. — Broyles v. Waddel, 11 Heisk.
32.
Vermorat.— Strong v. Hunt, 20 Vt. 614.
Wisconsin. — Stewart v. Stewart, 90 Wis.
516, 63 N. W. 886, 48 Am. St. Rep. 949;
Ph(Enix Lead Min., etc., Co. v. Sydnor, 39
Wis. 600.
Limited to expenditure. — The amount a
tenant in common incurring expenses in mak-
ing improvements on the common property
may recover from his cotenant must be based
on the expenditure, and no,t on the fair
market value of the improvement, or on what
they are reasonably worth. Contaldi V.
Erriehetti, 79 Conn. 273, 64 Atl. 211.
39. Hawaii. — Kanakamaikai v. Pahulio,
12 Hawaii 1; Nahaolelua v. Kaaahu, 10
Hawaii 662.
Illinois. — Heppe l'. Szczepanski, 209 111.
88, 70 N. E. 737, 101 Am. St. Rep. 221.
Kamsas. — Phipps v. Phipps, 47 Kan. 328,
27 Pac. 972.
Louisiana. — Toler v. Bunch, 34 La. Ann.
997.
Massachusetts. — Gwinneth v. Thompson, 9
Pick. 31, 19 Am. Dec. 350.
Michigan. — Eighmey v. Thayer, 135 Mich.
682, 98 N. W. 734, 66 L. R. A. 915.
New Mexico. — Armijo v. Neher, 11 N. M.
645, 72 Pac. 12.
Pennsylvania. — Anderson v. Greble, 1
Ashm. 136.
Vermont. — Earrand f. Gleason, 56 Vt. 633;
Strong V. Hunt, 20 Vt. 614.
Partial contribution for unnecessary im-
provements. — Where a tenant in common in
repairing the common property makes un-
necessary improvements, or repairs of an
unnecessary character, he is not entitled to
full contribution; but, under the circum-
stances of the case, he may be entitled to
partial contribution. Middlebury Electric
Co. V. Tupper, 70 Vt. 603, 41 Atl. 582.
So where a cotenant pays taxes upon the
premises and the interest on a mortgage
thereon during the lifetime of a widow in
possession thereof entitled to dower therein,
but which had not been admeasured, he can
only recover from his cotenants the share
of such taxes and interest paid for their
benefit, but not the share thereof paid for
the benefit of the widow for which she was
liable. Arthur v. Arthur, 76 N. Y. App.
Div. 330, 78 N. Y. Suppl. 486.
40. Williams v. Coombs, 88 Me. 183, 33
Atl. 1073.
41. District of Columiia. — Alexander v.
Douglass, 6 D. C. 247.
Michigan. — Eighmey v. Thayer, 135 Mich.
682, 98 N". W. 734, 66 L. R. A. 915.
Netv Mexico. — Neher f. Armijo, 9 N. M.
325, 54 Pac. 236, 11 N. M. 67, 66 Pac. 517.
Teajos.— Duke v. Reed, 64 Tex. 705.
Virginia. — Graham v. Pierce, 19 Gratt.
28, 100 Am. Dec. 658.
England. — Williams v. Williams, 68 L. J.
Ch. 528, 81 L. T. Rep. N. S. 163; Kenrick V.
Mountsteven, 48 Wkly. Rep. 141.
Canada. — Rice v. George, 20 Grant Ch.
(U. C.) 221.
Where one made improvements believing
himself, in good faith, to b« the sole owner,
he was held not to be entitled to be pro-
portionately reimbursed by his cotenant; he
only had the right to such reimbursement
as he may have received from the rents and
profits. Gregg v. Patterson, 9 Watts & S.
(Pa.) 197.
He must consent to be charged with occu-
pation rent, if he claims payment for im-
[III, E, 2, e]
60 [38 Cycj
TENANCY IN COMMON
are made.*^ Evidence of a declaration to a disinterested person by a tenant in
common so making the expenditures that he is operating the common property
entirely at his own expense is not sufficient to establish a contract by him not to
make any demand on account of his expenses."
d. Right as Affected by Statute. The ordinary rule that statutes in contra-
vention of common right are strictly construed is peculiarly applicable to tenants
in common." So a statute providing for allowance for improvements or better-
ments to purchasers making improvements under the belief that they have a good
title has no application to the case of tenants in common; ^^ nor has a statute
giving compensation for improvements to a defendant in ejectment after a certain
number of years.^" But a statute authorizing defendants in ejectment, in certain
cases, to recover the value of their permanent improvements on the land, has
been held to apply to an action in which plaintiff recovers an undivided interest
as cotenant of defendant.*'
e. Remedies. Contribution is recoverable either by bill in equity,*^ or in
some states in an ordinary civil action.*' The question of the right to contribution
must be raised in some direct proceeding for that purpose, and cannot be adjudi-
cated collaterally in some other suit; ^" and the claim must be made within a
Robbins, 71 Wis.
Chapman, 36 Fed.
Co., 17 Fed. 466,
provements. Eiee f. George, 20 Grant Ch.
(U. C.) 221.
42. Massachusetts. — Dewing r. Dewing,
165 Mass. 230, 42 N. E. 1128; Backus v.
Chapman, 111 Mass. 386.
Neto Hampshire. — Pickering v. Pickering,
63 N H. 468, 3 Atl. 744.
New York. — Hannan f. Osborn, 4 Paige
336.
North Carolina. — Holt v. Couch, 125 N. C.
456, 34 S. E. 703, 74 Am. St. Rep. 648.
Pennsylvania. — Anderson v. Greble, 1
Ashm. 136.
Texas.— Eastham v. Sims, 11 Tex. Civ.
App. 133, 32 S. W. 359.
Virginia. — Ruffner v. Lewis, 7 Leigh 720,
30 Am. Dec. 513.
West Virginia. — See Bodkin v. Arnold, 48
W. Va. 108, 35 S. E. 980.
Wisconsin. — Tipping v.
507, 37 N. W. 427.
United States. — Davis v.
42 ; Austin v. Rutland R.
21 Blatchf. 358.
43. Danforth v. Moore, 55 N. J. Eq. 127,
35 Atl. 410.
44. See cases cited infra, this and the fol-
lowing notes.
Where treble damages were provided by
statute for the cutting and conversion of
timber trees growing on the lands of another,
and a subsequent statute provided that if a
tenant in common cut or removed any timber
without the written consent of his cotenant,
the injured person should have every remedy
that he would have against an entire
stranger, it was held that the penalty pro-
vided in the first-named statute was not by
the second statute extended to an action in
relation to a cotenancy. Central Trust Co.
f. New York Equipment Co., 87 Hun (N. Y.)
421, 34 IM. y. Suppl. 349; Wheeler v. Car-
penter, 107 Pa. St. 271.
A statute providing that necessary repairs
to be made in any mill, mill dam, or flume
owned by joint tenants or tenants in com-
mon, when the privilege of the water is
[III, E, 2, e]
owned jointly or in common, shall be made
by such owners in proportion to their re-
spective interests, said statute further
providing for the submission of the matter
to selectmen, was held not to apply to the
case of tenants in common not being also co-
tenants of the water power necessary to
work such mill. Roberts v: Peavey, 27 N. H.
477.
45. Holt V. Couch, 125 N. C. 456, 34 S. E.
703, 74 Am. St. Rep. 648.
46. Morris v. McKay, 40 Mich. 326; Sands
V. Davis, 40 Mich. 14; Martin v. O'Connor,
37 Mich. 440, under Comp. Laws, §§ 6252-
6253.
47. Phoenix Lead Min., etc., Co. v. Sydnor,
39 Wis. 600, under Rev. St. c. 141,
§§ 30-33.
48. McDearman v. McClure, 31 Ark. 559;
Kenopsky v. Davis, 27 La. Ann. 174; Ward
c. Ward, 40 W. Va. 611, 21 S. E. 746, 52
Am. St. Rep., 911, 29 L. R. A. 449.
Equity usually affords the sole remedy
between cotenants or their assignees for ad-
vances made, in the absence of statute. Arey
V. Hall, 81 Me. 17, 16 Atl. 302, 10 Am. St.
Rep. 232. See also Wood v. Merritt, 2
Bosw. (N. Y.) 368.
49. Fowler v. Fowler, 50 Conn. 256.
The remedy at common law against a co-
tenant refusing to unite in making repairs
was not in assumpsit, but by writ de repara-
tione facienda, sued out before the repairs
were made, in which proceeding an appropri-
ate order was entered, requiring them to be
made at the expense of all the tenants.
Cooper V. Brown, 143 Iowa 482, 122 N. W.
144.
50. Brown t: Budd, 2 Ind. 442; Stevens
f. Thompson, 17 N. H. 103; Mavfield v. Mc-
Knight, (Tenn. Ch. App. 1899) 56 S. W. 42;
Morris v. Roseberry, 46 W. Va. 24, 32 S E
1019.
The personal representatives of a deceased
cotenant should be made parties to a suit for
contribution. Venable v. Beauchamp, 3 Dana
(Ky.) 321, 28 Am. Dec. 74.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cye.] 61
reasonable time, otherwise it may be barred by laches.^* Where there is neither
an agreement, a consent, nor a ratification for making expenditures on the com-
mon property, or a statute to the contrary, the remedy for a tenant in common
who makes expenditures on the common property is to have the part improved
set aside to him on a partition, or, this being impracticable, to obtain an equitable
allowance for necessary expenditures, or sale in lieu of partition; '"'^ in which event
equity will direct an account and suitable compensation for such improvements.^^
A tenant in common so making expenditures should be allowed to equitably set
them off against the income.^* An injunction may issue to restrain the execution
on a judgment in ejectment until after payment for improvements.^^
f. Lien. Necessary improvements, expenditures, or services in relation to
the common property for the common benefit may create an equitable lien between
cotenants in the premises.^" But special circumstances must be shown to bring
51. German v. Heath, 139 Iowa 52, 116
N. W. 1051.
52. Hawaii. — Nahaolelua v. Kaaahu, 10
Hawaii 662.
Indiana. — ^Alleman v. Hawley, 117 Ind. 532,
20 N. E. 441.
lotoa. — Van Ormer i: Harley, 102 Iowa
150, 71 N. W. 241.
Kentucky. — Armstrong v. Bryant, 16 S. W.
463, 13 Ky. L. Eep. 128.
New Jersey. — Danforth v. Moore, 55 N". J.
Eq. 127, 35 Atl. 410.
Texas. — Mahon v. Barnett, (Civ. App.
1897) 45 S. W. 24; Calhoun v. Stark, 13
Tex. Civ. App. 60, 35 S. W. 410.
Virginia. — Ballou v. Ballon, 94 Va. 350,
26 S. E. 840, 64 Am. St. Eep. 733.
West Virginia. — ^Williamson v. Jones, 43'
W. Va. 562, 27 S. E. 411, 64 Am. St. Eep.
891, 38 L. E. A. 694.
Purchase of cotenant's share. — ^Where a
tenant in common made improvements on his
half interest, purchased the other tenant's
interest, and gave purchase-money notes
therefor, thus taking to himself the entire
title to the property, he could not have an
artificial division thereof into half interests,
with himself alone, against the holders of
the notes before foreclosure thereof. Burge
V. Chestnut, (Ky. 1909) 121 S. W. 989.
Money raised on mortgage by all the co-
tenants, expended for permanent improve-
ment of the common property, remaining
unpaid at the time of the sale of said prop-
erty, should be allowed in equity, but not
in excess of the amount actually expended
or of the proceeds of the sale of the prop-
erty so improved, and such allowance should
be charged proportionately to the respective
interests in the common property. In re
Cook, [1896] 1 Ch. 923, 65 L. J. Ch. 654, 74
L. T. Eep. N. S. 652, 44 Wkly. Eep. 646; In
re Jones, [1893] 2 Ch. 461, 62 L. J. Ch. 996,
69 L. T. Eep. N. S. 45, 3 Eeports 498 ; Wat-
son V. Gass, 51 L. J. Ch. 480, 45 L. T. Rep.
N. S. 582, 30 Wkly. Eep. 286.
53. District of Columbia. — Alexander v.
Douglass, 6 D. C. 247.
Geor-ffm.— Turnbull v. Foster, 116 Ga. 765,
43 S. E. 42 ; Bazemore v. Davis, 55 Ga. 504.
Mississippi. — Nelson v. Leake, 25 Miss.
199.
New Hampshire. — Pickering v. Pickering,
63 N. H. 468, 3 Atl. 744.
North Carolina. — Holt v. Couch, 125 N. C.
456, 34 S. E. 703, 74 Am. St. Eep. 648.
Texas. — Branch v. Makeig, 9 Tex. Civ.
App. 399, 28 S. W. 1050.
Virginia. — Ballou v. Ballou, 94 Va. 350,
26 S. E. 840, 64 Am. St. Rep. 733; Euffners
f. Lewis, 7 Leigh 720, 30 Am. Dec. 513.
West Virginia. — Ward v. Ward, 50 W. Va.
517, 40 S. E. 472. See also 29 L. R. A. 452
note.
54. Alabama. — Pegram v. Barker, 115
Ala. 543, 22 So. 131.
Massachusetts. — Dewing v. Dewing, 165
Mass. 230, 42 N. E. 1128.
Minnesota. — Kean v. Connelly, 25 Minn.
222, 33 Am. Eep. 458.
New York. — Hannan v. Osborn, 4 Paige
336.
Termessee. — Tyner ». Fenner, 4 Lea 469.
West Virginia. — Bodkin v. Arnold, 48
W. Va. 108, 35 S. E. 980.
United States. — Davis t\ Chapman, 36
Fed. 42.
England. — Pascoe v. Swan, 27 Beav. 508,
5 Jur. N. S. 1235, 29 L. J. Ch. 159, 1 L. T.
Eep. N. S. 17, 8 Wkly. Rep. 130, 54 Eng.
Reprint 201.
55. Russell v. Defrance, 39 Mo. 506.
56. Arkansas. — Drennen v. Walker, 21
Ark. 539.
Kentucky. — Hotopp v. Morrison Lodge
No. 76, 110 Ky. 987, 63 S. W. 44, 23 Ky. L.
Rep. 418; Burch v. Burch, 82 Ky. 622; Alex-
ander V. Ellison, 79 Ky. 148.
Michigan. — Patrick v. Young Men's Chris-
tian Assoc, 120 Mich. 185, 79 N. W. 208.
Mississippi. — Bennett v. Bennett, 84 Miss.
493, 36 So. 452; Davidson v. Wallace, 53
Miss. 475.
New York. — Jones v. Duerk, 25 N. Y. App.
Div. 551, 49 N. Y. Suppl. 987; Green v. Put-
nam, 1 Barb. 500; Bowen v. Kaughran, 1
N. Y. St. 121.
Teasas.— Torrey v. Martin, (1887) 4 S. W.
642 ; Branch v. Makeig, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 399,
28 S. W. 1050: Robinson v. Moore, 1 Tex.
Civ. App. 93. 20 S. W. 994. See also Curtis
V. Poland, 66 Tex. 511, 2 S. W. 39.
West Virginia. — Ward v. Ward, 40 W. Va.
611, 21 S. E. 746, 52 Am. St. Rep. 911, 29
L. E. A. 449.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," §§ 94, 99. And see supra,' lU, D, 1,
c; III, D, 2, b.
[Ill, E, 2. f]
62 [38 Cye,]
TENANCY IN COMMON
such claim within the rights of a lien,"' and a tenant in common is not entitled to
a lien for common expenses on the interests of his cotenants when it can neither
be ascertained of what the expense consists nor to which of several tracts com-
prising the common estate it pertains,** nor is he entitled to such lien for money
paid out for the support of his cotenant.*" The lien, if it exists, may be waived,""
and cotenants may contract with each other for the improvement of the common
property and waive the rights of lien both for themselves and their subcontractors."
F. Rent, Income, and Profits — l. Collection and Application of Rents.
Any of the cotenants may collect the rent for the common property,'^ and may
apply it to pay a proper charge on the common property; but he has no right to
apply it to charges disconnected with said common ownership. °^ If rents, income.
In the case of peisonal property where the
tenant in common may lawfully control the
same, he in possession has a right to employ
another to care for the property, who will
have a lien dependent on possession for the
pavment of such services. Williamson i".
Moore, 10 Ida. 749, 80 Pac. 227; Taylor v.
Baldwin, 10 Barb. (X. Y.) 582 [affirmed in
10 Barb. 626]; Ward r. Ward, 40 W. Va.
611, 21 S. E. 746, 52 Am. St. Eep. 911, 29
L. R. A. 449, lien. See also Torrey r. Mar-
tin, (Tex. Sup. 1887) 4 S. W. 642.
Compelling contribution in equity is not
creating a lien. Williams c. Coombs, 88 Me.
184, 33 Atl. 1073.
A lien may follow the estate even into the
hands of a purchaser without notice. Cot-
ton r. Rand, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 51 S. W.
55.
Priority of lien for improvements as
against subsequent mortgagee. — The lien
for an equitable share of the cost of improve-
ments on the common property bv a tenant
in common with the consent of his cotenant
therein, before the execution of a mortgage
of the share of the consenting tenant, takes
priority of such mortgage. Stenger v. Ed-
wards, 70 111. 631; Gardner r. Diederichs, 41
111. 158.
Liability of wife. — There is no personal
liability of a wife, in relation to a contract
by the husband, for improvements on their
common property; and no mechanic's lien at-
taches to her interest therein, unless other-
wise provided bv statute. Smith c. O'Don-
nell, 15 Misc. (X. Y.) 98, 36 X. Y. Suppl.
480.
57. Taylor r. Baldwin, 10 Barb. (X. Y.)
582 [affirmed in 10 Barb. 626].
58. Cotton 1-. Coit, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895)
30 S. W. 281 [reversed on other grounds in
88 Tex. 414, 31 S. W. 1061].
59. Branch r. Makeig, 9 Tex. Civ. App.
399, 28 S. W. 1050.
60. Westmoreland Guarantee Bldg., etc.,
Assoc, i;. Connor, 216 Pa. St. 543, 65 Atl.
1089.
A conveyance from one coparcener to an-
other coparcener of his undivided interest in
the common land does not pass his preexist-
ing demand against his coparceners or their
interests in the land for improvements put
on the land, unless such demand is expressly
released or transferred in the conveyance.
Ward r. Ward, 50 W. Va. 517, 40 S. E. 472.
61. Westmoreland Guarantee Bldg., etc.,
[Ill, E, 2 f]
Assoc. V. Connor, 216 Pa. St. 543, 65 AtL
1089.
62. Miner f. Lorman, 70 Mich. 173, 38
X. W. 18; Foster t>. Magee, 2 Lans. (X'^. Y.)
182; Decker v. Livingston, 15 Johns. (X. Y.)
479. But see Harrison i: Barnby, 5 T. R.
246, 2 Rev. Rep. 584, 101 Eng. Reprint 138,
holding that a terre-tenant holding under
two tenants in common may not pay the
whole rent to one after notice from the other
not to do so; if such pajTnent be made to
one tenant in common after such notice, the
other may distrain for his share.
Where the letting is joint the lessee can-
not be obliged to pay part of the rent to each
tenant. Griffin r. Clark, 33 Barb. (X. Y.)
46; De Coursey v. Guarantee Trust, etc., Co.,
81 Pa. St. 217. But see Barnum r. Landon,
25 Conn. 137.
Collects as owner. — Where one coowner of
property collects the rents or profits of the
whole he does so not in the capacity of
agent, but in that of owner, in the absence
of statute or agreement to the contrary. Van
Ormer v. Harley, 102 Iowa 150, 71 N. W.
241; Kennedy r. De Trafford, [1897] A. C.
180, 66 L. J. Ch. 413, 76 L. T. Rep. X. S.
427, 45 Wkly. Rep. 671. And a tenant in
conmion receiving rents and profits from the
common property in excess of his share is
not a trustee of such moneys received by him
but merely a debtor therefor; unless there
be a statute, a waiver, an acquiescence, or an
agreement, express or implied, to the con-
trary. St. John r. Coates, 63 Hun (X. Y.)
460, 18 X. Y. Suppl. 419 [affirmed in 140
X. Y. 634, 35 X. E. 891] ; Shearman i\ Jlor-
rison, 149 Pa. St. 386. 24 Atl. 313; Stehman
V. Campbell, 4 Pa. Dist. 441. There is no
lien on his beneficial interest as against a
purchaser without notice. British Mut. Inv.
Co. v. Smart, L. R. 10 Ch. 567, 44 L. J. Ch.
695, 32 L. T. Rep. X. S. 849, 23 Wkly. Rep.
800. And see infra. III, F, 2, c, text and
note 84.
63. Indiana. — Ryason r. Dunten, 164 Ind.
85, 73 X. E. 74, holding, however, that there
is no compulsion, in the absence of agreement
express or implied, or of statute, to so apply.
Michigan. — ^Jliner r. Lorman, 70 Mich. 173,
38 X. W. 18.
Veto York. — Griffin r. Clark, 33 Barb. 46;
Cole r. Cole, 57 Misc. 490, 108 X. \. Suppl.
124; Hannan i-. Osborn, 4 Paige 336.
Oregon. — Minter v. Durham, 13 Ores. 470,
11 Pac. 231.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cye.J 63
or profits be collected and proper liens or charges against the common estate be
discharged, in the absence of proof to the contrary it will be presumed that
such payments were made from the amounts collected; so that if a mortgage or
lien theretofore held by a tenant in common or one in privity with him be so
discharged during the cotenancy, such discharge will be presumed to be for the
benefit of all the cotenants therein, and a claim arising therefrom will be available
to the cotenant so claiming in an accounting only,"* and such cotenant is entitled
to no lien therefor in the premises."^ It is the duty of a cotenant to apply the
income from the common property to the reimbursement of himself for money
expended by him in purchasing the interest of his cotenants at tax-sales, and
he must so apply it and may not permit the statute to run against them.'"
2. Liability of Cotenants For Rents and Profits — a. Rule Stated. In the
absence of statute or agreement to the contrary, a tenant in common, while merely
in possession of the common property, not excluding his cotenants, nor denying
them equal enjoyment, cannot be charged with rent for use and occupation,"'
England. — Williams v. Williams, 68 L. J.
Ch. 528, 81 L. T. Kep. N. S. 163.
A presumption may arise that rent has
been so applied. Downey v. Strouse, 101 Va.
226, 43 S. E. 348.
If the collecting cotenant is warned not to
use income or rent so collected, or the com-
mon property for certain purposes, and
nevertheless so uses it, he may be held liable
for rental from the date that he has been
notified to cease the application of the fund
or the use of said property in such manner.
Boley V. Earutio, 24 111. App. 515 [affirmed
in 120 111. 192, 11 N. E. 393]; Moreira v.
Schwan, 113 La. 643, 37 So. 542. A tenant
in common claiming rents and applying them,
with the acquiescence of her cotenants, to the
extinguishment of an encumbrance, is not
entitled on an accounting for the rents to a
credit for the payment made on account of
said encumbrance after her authority so to
pay had been revoked. Switzer v. Switzer,
57 N. J. Eq. 421, 41 Atl. 486. The receiver
of a tenant in common is not entitled to an
order of court directing the other cotenant
not to collect rents from the common prop-
erty. Tyson v. Fairclough, 2 Sim. & St. 142,
25 Rev. Rep. 175, 1 Eng. Ch. -142, 57 Eng.
Reprint 300.
64. Knolls V. Barnhart, 7l N. Y. 474.
See also Barnes v. Barnes, 72 S. W. 282, 24
Ky. L. Rep. 1732.
65. Stenger v. Edwards, 70 111. 631 ; Han-
nan v. Osborn, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 336.
66. Kean v. Connelly, 25 Minn. 222, 33
Am. Rep. 458; Davis v. Chapman, 24 Fed.
674.
67. Alalama. — Fielder v. Childs, 73 Ala.
567; Terrell v. Cunningham, 70 Ala. 100;
Newbold v. Smart, 67 Ala. 326.
Arkatisas. — Cannon v. Stevens, 88 Ark.
610, 115 S. W. 388; Hamby v. Wall, 48 Ark.
135, 2 S. W. 705, 3 Am. St. Rep. 218; Ber-
trand v. Taylor, 32 Ark. 470.
California. — Pico v. Columbet, 12 Cal. 414,
73 Am. Dec. 550.
Connecticut. — Southwork v. Smith, 27
Conn. 355, 71 Am. Dec. 72. See also Barnum
V. Landon, 25 Conn. 137.
Delaware. — In re Journey, 7 Del. Ch. 1, 44
Atl. 795, holding that heirs at law, to whom
property descends previous to a sale thereof
under a will, are in the position of other
cotenants in contracting with each other for
the use and occupation of the common prop-
erty or maintaining actions against each
other therefor.
Georgia. — Elam v. Moorefield, 33 Ga.
167.
Hawaii. — Peterson v. Kaanaana, 10 Hawaii
384; Hawaiian Commercial, etc., Co. v.
Waikapu Sugar Co., 9 Hawaii 75.
/JZmois.— Fraser v. Gates, 118 111. 99, 1
N. E. 817; Cheney v. Ricks, 87 111. App. 388
[affirmed in 187" 111. 171, 58 N. E. 234] ;
Boley V. Barutio, 24 111. App. 515 [affirmed
in 120 111. 192, 11 N. E. 393];. Sconce v.
Sconce, 15 111. App. 169.
Indiana. — Ryason v. Dunten, 164 Ind. 85,
73 N. E. 74; Davis v. Hutton, 127 Ind. 481,
26 N. E. 187, 1006; Crane r. Waggoner, 27
Ind. 52, 89 Am. Dec. 493; McCrum v. Mc-
Crum, 36 Ind. App. 636, 76 N. E. 415.
Iowa. — Van Ormer r. Harley, 102 Iowa
150, 71 N. W. 241; Belknap ;;. Belknap, 77
Iowa 71, 41 N. W. 568.
Kentucky. — Fightmaster r. Beasly, 7 J. J.
Marsh. 410; Nelson v. Clay, 7 J. J. Marsh.
138, 23 Am. Dec. 387; Hixon v. Bridges, 38
S. W. 1046, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 1068.
Louisiana. — Toler v. Bunch, 34 La. Ann.
997; Balfour v. Balfour, 33 La. Ann. 297;
Morgan v. Morgan, 23 La. Ann. 502; Becnel
V. Becnel, 23 La. Ann. 150.
Maine. — Carter v. Bailey, 64 Me. 458, 18
Am. Rep. 273.
Maryland. — McLaughlin v. McLaughlin,
80 Md. 115, 30 Atl. 607; Israel v. Israel, 30
Md. 120, 96 Am. Dec. 571.
Massachusetts. — Brown v. Wellington, 106
Mass. 318, 8 Am. Rep. 330; Munroe i\ Lake,
1 Mete. 459; Sargent v. Parsons, 12 Mass.
149.
Michigan. — Owings v. Owings, 150 Mich.
609, 114 N. W. 393; Wilmarth v. Palmer, 34
Mich. 347; Everts v. Beach, 31 Mich. 136, 18
Am. Rep. 169.
Minnesota. — Hauae i: Hause, 29 Minn.
252, 13 N. W. 43; Kean v. Connelly, 25 Minn.
222, 33 Am. Rep. 458; Holmes v. Williams,
16 Minn. 164, holding the cotenant not liable
where he has no knowledge of his cotenant's
[III. F. 2, a]
64 [38 CycJ
TENANCY IN COMMON
and where a tenant in common does not claim more than his proportionate share,
and does not receive rents or profits for more than said share, and does not prevent
his tenant in common from occupying the property or receiving or enjoying his
proportionate share of the rents and profits, his cotenant is not entitled to recover
title and no demand of possession there-
under has been made on him.
Mississippi. — Bennett v. Bennett, 84 Miss.
493, 36 So. 452; Her i;. Routh, 3 How. 276.
Missouri. — Childs v. Kansas City, etc., R.
Co., (1891) 17 S. W. 854; Kagan v. McCoy,
29 Mo. 356 ; Rogers v. Penniston, 16 Mo. 432.
Montana. — Ayotte v. Nadeau, 32 Mont.
498, 81 Pac. 145.
Aetw Hampshire. — Berry v. Whidden, 62
N. H. 473; Webster v. Calef, 47 N. H. 289.
J aw Jersey. — Lloyd v. Turner, 70 N. J.
Eq. 425, 62 Atl. 771; Rose v. Cooley,
(Ch. 1906) 62 Atl. 867; Sailer v. Sailer, 41
N. J. Eq. 398, 5 Atl. 319; Swallow i\ Swal-
low, 31 N. J. Eq. 390; Buckelew v. Snedeker,
27 N. J. Eq. 82; Izard v. Bodine, 11 N. J.
Eq. 403, 69 Am. Dec. 595.
New York. — Barry v. Coville, 129 N. Y.
302, 29 N. E. 307 [affirming 13 N. Y. Suppl.
4]; Adams v. Bristol, 126 N. Y. App. Div.
660, 111 N. Y. Suppl. 231; Willes v. Loomis,
94 N. Y. App. Div. 67, 87 N. Y. Suppl. 1086;
Biglow V. Biglow, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 98, 77
N. Y. Suppl. 716; Valentine v. Healey, 86
Hun 259, 33 N. Y. Suppl. 246; Joslyn v.
Joslyn, 9 Hun 388; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 48
Barb. 327 (husband occupying in right of
wife) ; Woolever v. Knapp, 18 Barb. 265;
Cole V. Cole, 57 Misc. 490, 108 N. Y. Suppl.
124; Matter of Lucy, 4 Misc. 349, 24 N. Y.
Suppl. 352; McMurray r. Rawson, 3 Hill 59.
North Carolina. — Roberts v. Roberts, 55
N. C. 128.
O^iio.— West V. Weyer, 46 Ohio St. 66, 18
N. E. 537, 15 Am. St. Rep. 552.
Pennsylvania. — Kline v. Jacobs, 68 Pa. St.
57; Coleman's Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 252;
Thompson v. Newton, 8 Pa. Cas. 118, 7 Atl.
64, 2 Pa. Co. Ct. 362; Wells t: Becker, 24
Pa. Super. Ct. 174; Spellbrink's Estate, 3
Pa. Dist. 807, 15 Pa. Co. Ct. 506; Under-
wood's Estate, 5 Pa. Co. Ct. 621; Keller v.
Lamb, 10 Kulp 246; Jevons v. Kline, 9
Kulp 305; Kennedy's Estate, 1 Lack. Leg.
N. 135; Norris v. Gould, 15 Wkly. Notes
Cas. 187.
Rhode Island. — Almy i\ Daniels, 17 R. I.
543, 23 Atl. 637, 15 R. I. 312, 4 Atl. 753, 10
Atl. 654, rule applied to use of adjoining
sidewalk. See also Knowles v. Harris, 5
R. I. 402, 73 Am. Dec. 77.
South Carolina. — Buck v. Martin, 21 S. C.
590, 53 Am. Rep. 702; Jones v. Massey, 14
S. C. 292; Lyles r. Lyles, 1 Hill Eq. 76;
Volentine v. Johnson, 1 Hill Eq. 49; Murray
V. Stevens, Rich. Eq. Cas. 205.
Tennessee. — Schneider r. Taylor, 16 Lea
304; Tyner v. Fenner, 4 Lea 469, holding
tliat in order to compel an account a profit
must be shown over and above the mere use.
Texas. — Autry v. Reasor, 102 Tex. 123, 108
S. W. 1162, 113 S. W. 748; Neil r. Schackel-
ford, 45 Tex. 119; Morris v. Morris, 47 Tex.
Civ. App. 244, 105 S. W. 242; Mahon v. Bar-
[III. F, 2, a]
nett, (Civ. App. 1897) 45 S. W. 24; Cal-
houn V. Stark, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 60, 35 S. U .
410; Bennett v. Virginia Ranch, etc., Co., 1
Tex. Civ. App. 321, 21 S. W. 126; Ring v.
Smith, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 1115; McGrady
V. McRae, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 1036. See
also Anderson v. Clanch, (1887) 6 S. W. 760,
where, under an agreement between coten-
ants that one of them should manage the
common property and deduct reasonable com-
pensation for the rents, it was held in an
accounting that defendant was not charge-
able with use and occupation.
Virginia. — Ballou v. Ballou, 94 Va. 350,
26 S. E. 840, 64 Am. St. Rep. 733. See also
Newman t\ Newman, 27 Gratt. 714.
West Virginia. — Ward v. Ward, 40 W. Va.
611, 21 S. E. 746, 52 Am. St. Rep. 911, 29
L. R. A. 449.
Wisconsin. — Bulger v. Woods, 3 Finn. 460.
England.— Beer v. Beer, 12 C. B. 60, 16
Jur. 223, 21 L. J. C. P. 124, 74 E. C. L. 60
(holding that if a cotenant merely has the
sole enjoyment of the common property,
even though by his own industry and capital
he makes such enjoyment profitable and
takes the whole of the said profit, he does
not receive more than comes to his just
share) ; McMahon v. Burchell, 1 Coop. t.
Cott. 457, 47 Eng. Reprint 944, 2 Phil. 127,
22 Eng. Ch. 127, 41 Eng. Reprint 889, 5
Hare 322, 26 Eng. Ch. 322, 67 Eng. Reprint
936; Griffies v. Griffies, 8 L. T. Rep. N. S.
758, 11 Wkly. Rep. 943.
Canada. — GuptiU v. Ingersoll, 2 N.
Brunsw. Eq. 252; Munsie v. Lindsay, 10 Ont.
Pr. 173; In re Kirkpatrick, 10 Ont. Pr. 4;
Rice V. George, 20 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 221;
Bates V. Martin, 12 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 490.
See also Adamsou i>. Adamson, 17 Ont. 407;
Griffin v. Patterson, 45 U. C. Q. B. 536.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 83 et seq.
Such occupation may he considered and
made an equitable set-off against the oc-
cupying tenant's claim for repairs. Davis v.
Chapman, 36 Fed. 42.
A bill merely showing occupancy by the
defendant and forbearance to occupy on the
part of the complainant cannot be main-
tained. Angelo V. Angelo, 146 111. 629, 35
N. E. 229; Ayotte V. Nadeau, 32 Mont. 498,
81 Pac. 145.
If the common property was unoccupied
without the fault of any of the tenants in
common then, on an accounting between
them, none of them should be charged for
the use of the property. Farrand v. Gleason,
56 Vt. 633.
Cultivation and crops. — ^A tenant in com-
mon merely holding and cultivating the land
and taking the entire produce thereof with
the knowledge and consent of his cotenant
and without an agreement in relation thereto
cannot, in the absence of statute or agree-
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cye.] 65
from him any parts of such rents or profits received.'^ But a cotenant may be
held liable where there is a statute or an agreement express or implied to that
effect, "^ or where the relation of the cotenant solely occupying the whole of the
ment to the contrary, be held liable for such
use and occupation. McCrary v. Glover, 100
Ga. 90, 26 S. E. 102; Webster v. Calef, 47
N. H. 289. See also Vass v. Hill, (N. J.
Ch.) 21 Atl. 585; West i\ Weyer, 46 Ohio
St. 66, 18 N. E. 537, 15 Am. St. Rep. 552;
McMahon v. Burchell, 3 Hare 97, 67 Eng.
Eeprint 312, 1 Coop. t. Cott. 457, 47 Eng.
Eeprint 944, 2 Phil. 127, 22 Eng. Ch. 127,
41 Eng. Reprint 889. Crops grown upon the
common estate by one tenant in common of
the land vest in and become the property of
the occupying tenant, in the absence of
agreement or statute to the contrary. The
other cotenants have no property therein.
In cases of exclusion, where there is a, lia-
bility of the occupying tenant, it usually
extends only to an accounting for what he
has received beyond his share. There is no
property or lien in the produce. Kennon i\
Wright, 70 Ala. 434; Bird v. Bird, 15 Fla.
424, 21 Am. Rep. 296; Creed v. People, 81
111. 565; Becnel v. Becnel, 23 La. Ann. 150;
Moreland v. Strong, 115 Mich. 211, 73 N. W.
140, 69 Am. St. Rep. 553; Harris v. Gregg,
17 N. Y. App. Div. 210, 45 N. Y. Suppl. 364;
LeBarren i\ Babcock, 46 Hun (N. Y.) 598
[affirmed in 122 N. Y. 153, 25 N. E. 253, 19
Am. St. Rep. 488, 9 L. R. A. 625] ; Shearin
V. Riggsbee, 97 N. C. 216, I S. E. 770;
Darden v. Cowper, 52 N. C. 210, 75 Am.
Dec. 461. See also Morgan r. Long, 73 Miss.
406, 19 So. 98, 55 Am. St. Rep. 541; Keisel
V. Earnest, 21 Pa. St. 90; Bates v. Martin,
12 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 490. Compare Wick-
off V. Wickoff, (N. J. Ch. 1889) 18 Atl. 74.
68. Scantlin v. Allison, 32 Kan. 376, 4
Pac. 618; Bennett v. Bennett, 84 Miss- 493,
36 So. 452; Ragan v. McCoy, 29 Mo. 356;
Joslyn V. Joslyn, 9 Hun (N. Y.) 388, under
I Rev. St. p. 750, § 9.
If the common property admits of use and
occupation by several, and one of the tenants
in common uses and occupies les? than his
just share and proportion of the common
property, so as in no way to hinder or ex-
clude the other tenants in common from, in
like manner, using and occupying their just
share and proportion, he does not receive
more than comes to his just share and pro-
portion in the meaning of Code, c. 100, § 14.
Dodson r. Hays, 29 W. Va. 577, 2 S. E. 415.
69. Delaware. — In re Journey, 7 Del. Ch.
1, 44 Atl. 795.
Illinois. — Boley v. Barutio, 120 III. 192,
II N. E. 393; Elliott v. Knight, 64 111. App. 87.
Indiana. — McCrum v. McCrum, 36 Ind.
App. 636, 76 ST. E. 415.
Maine. — Richardson v. Richardson, 72 Me.
403.
Massachusetts. — Backus v. Chapman, 111
Mass. 386 (under Gen. St. c. 134, § 18) ;
Field V. Craig, 8 Allen 357.
Michigan. — Puller v. Sweet, 30 Mich. 237,
18 Am. Rep. 122.
'New Hampshire.— Porter v. Ayer, 66 N. H.
400, 29 Atl. 1027.
[5]
New York. — Willes v. Loomis, 94 N. Y.
App. Div. 67, 87 N. Y. Suppl. 1086; Myers
V. Bolton, 89 Hun 342, 35 N. Y. Suppl. 577
[modified in 157 N. Y. 393, 52 N, E. 114];
Burrell v. Bull, 3 Sandf. Ch. 15.
North Carolina. — See Pitt v. Petway, 34
N. C. 69.
Pennsylvania. — Lancaster v. Flowers, 208
Pa. St. 199, 57 Atl. 526 ; Clayton v. McCay,
143 Pa. St. 225, 22 Atl. 754; Kline v. Jacobs,
68 Pa. St. 57; Corbett v. Lewis, 53 Pa. St.
322; Keller v. Lamb, 10 Kulp 246.
Rhode Island. — Hazard v. Albro, 17 R. I.
181, 20 Atl. 834.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 83 et seq.
A tenant in common holding over under a
contract from his cotenants is liable for rent
the same as a stranger would be if holding
over. Harry v. Harry, 127 Ind. 91, 26 N. E.
562; O'Connor v. Delaney, 53 Minn. 247, 54
N. W. 1108, 39 Am. St. Rep. 601; Carson a.
Broady, 56 Nebr. 648, 77 N. W. 80, 71 Am.
St. Rep. 691; Valentine v. Healey, 158 N. Y.
369, 52 N. E. 1097, 43 L. R. A. 667; Early
V. Friend, 16 Gratt. (Va.) 21, 78 Am. Dec.
649; Rockwell v. Luck, 32 Wis. 70; Leigh
V. Dickeson, 15 Q. B. D. 60, 54 L. J. Q. B.
18, 52 L. T. Rep. N. S. 790, 33 Wkly. Rep.
538. And rental value is properly taken to
continue the same as rent fixed in a rental
agreement where there is no evidence to the
contrary and the issue is between the par-
ties thereto. Harry v. Harry, 127 Ind. 91,
26 N. E. 562 ; Clayton v. McCay, 143 Pa. St.
225, 22 Atl. 754. But if a tenant in com-
mon has been holding under an agreement to
pay rent and continues in possession after
the expiration of the lease, but makes no
claim to be exclusively entitled to the pos-
session or offers possession of his cotenant's
share to said cotenant, then he is presumed
not to be holding in the character of lessee
but of that of tenant in common, and is not
liable for rent, in the absence of statute to
the contrary; and statutes providing for lia-
bility for tenants holding over are liberally
construed in his favor. Dresser v. Dresser,
40 Barb. (N. Y.) 300; Mumford v. Brown,
1 Wend. (N. Y.) 52, 19 Am. Dec. 461. The
presumption is otherwise if he, after the ex-
piration of the lease, treats it as though it
were in force and continues to discharge
the obligation thereby imposed upon him.
Carson t. Broady, 56 Nebj. 648, 77 N. W.
80, 71 Am. St. Rep. 691.
Question for jury. — Whether or not the re-
lationship of landlord and tenant in the com-
mon property exists between tenants in com-
mon is, under a conflicting state of facts, a
question for the jury. Chapin v. Foss, 75
111. 280; Boley f. Barutio, 24 111. App. 515.
The untenantability of the premises is no
defense to an action for rent, under an ex-
press contract of rental. Kline v. Jacobs, 68
Pa. St. 57.
[Ill, F, 2, a]
66 [38 Cyc]
TENANCY IN COMMON
common property is fiduciary,'" and where the common property is occupied
adversely, or to the exclusion of the other common owners, by some of the coten-
ants, those so occupying are liable for so much of the rental value and the value
of the profits thereof as exceed their proportionate share." If the nature of
An action of distraint may be maintained
between tenants in common. Luther i". Ar-
nold, 8 Rich. (S. C.) 24, 62 Am. Dec. 422.
Burden of proof. — Where a contract was
alleged for the erection of a building, and
a division of rents after defendant should
have reimbursed himself from the rents to
the extent of one half the cost of the build-
ing, it is incumbent upon plaintiff to prove
such reimbursement. Ayotte f. Nadeau, 32
Mont. 498, 81 Pac. 145.
A statute apparently creating liability is
held not to apply to appropriation of prod-
ucts of the joint property by a cotenant
therein in exclusive possession thereof with-
out exclusion of his cotenants. Kean v. Con-
nelly, 25 ilinn. 222, 33 Am. Rep. 458. And
under a statute providing for an accounting
between cotenants for more than a coten-
ant's share of the rents and profits no re-
covery can be had for such products of the
land as the cotenant in possession takes
therefrom for his own use. Joslvn r. Joslyn,
9 Hun (X. Y.) 388.
Exclusive use as sufficient consideration to
support a promise to pay rent see Ayotte t.
ISTadeau, 32 ilont. 498, 81 Pac. 145.
70. Tarleton c. Goldthwaite, 23 Ala. 346,
58 Am. Dec. 296; Tyler r. Cartwright, 40
Mo. App. 378; Bates f. Martin, 12 Grant Ch.
(U. C.) 490.
71. District of Columbia. — Williams v.
Gardner, 2 MacArthxir 401.
Illinois. — McParland v. Larkin, 155 111.
84, 39 K. E. 609; Chambers v. Jones, 72 111.
275.
Indiana. — Carver v. Coffman, 109 Ind. 547,
10 X. E. 567; Crane v. Waggoner, 27 Ind.
52, 89 Am. Dec. 493. See also McCrum i-.
McCrum, 36 Ind. App. 636, 76 X. E. 415.
loica. — Rippe v. Badger, 125 Iowa 725,
101 X. W. 642, 106 Am. St. Rep. 336; Dodge
r. Dodge, 85 Iowa 77, 52 X. W. 2; Austin i'.
Barrett, 44 Iowa 488; Sears i. Sellew, 28
Iowa 501.
Kentucky. — Vermillion c. Xickell, (1908)
114 S. W. 270.
Maine. — Richardson v. Richardson, 72 Me.
403.
Massachusetts. — Munroe v. Luke, 1 Mete.
459.
IfieAipan.— Fenton f. Wendell, 116 Mich.
45, 74 X. W. 384, 72 Am. St. Rep. 502. See
also Wilmarth v. Palmer, 34 Mich. 347.
Minnesota. — Cook v. Webb, 21 Minn. 428,
holding that an action therefor is in the
nature of a common-law action of trespass
for mesne profits.
Missouri. — Bates v. Hamilton, 144 Mo. 1,
45 S. W. 641, 66 Am. St. Rep. 407; Falconer
V. Roberts, 88 Mo. 574; Starks v. Kirch-
graber, 134 Mo. App. 211, 113 S. W. 1149.
Montana. — Ayotte v. Nadeau, 32 Mont. 498,
81 Pac. 145.
^e&rasfca. — Schuster v. Schuster, 84 Xebr.
[Ill, F, 2, a]
98, 120 X. W. 948; Names v. Names, 48
Xebr. 701, 67 N. W. 751.
yew Jersey.— Yass v. Hill, (Ch. 1891) 21
Atl. 585; Edsall v. Merrill, 37 X. J. Eq. 114.
New York. — Zapp v. Miller, 109 X. Y. 51,
15 N. E. 889 (holding that a tenant in com-
mon fraudulently obtaining deeds to the
common property is liable for rent therein
from the time of the delivery of the deeds) ;
Willes i,-. Loomis, 94 N. Y. App. Div. 67, 87
N. Y. Suppl. 1086. See also Myers v. Bolton,
89 Hun 342, 35 X. Y. Suppl. 577 [reversed
on other grounds in 157 N. Y. 393, 52 X. E.
114] (holding that where property was leased
to and in possession of a firm, and it was
devised to the firm and others, and remained
in the possession and sole occupancy of the
firm after the devise, the partners were liable
to account to their cotenants for the rents
accruing after the death of the lessor) .
Ohio. — Converse f. Farwell, 1 Ohio Dec.
(Reprint) 141, 2 West. L. J. SOI, holding
that one so occupying incurs the responsi-
bility of a trustee; and if he negligently ac-
cepts notes instead of money for the rents,
and said notes remain unpaid until after the
insolvency of the maker thereof, he, so ac-
cepting the notes, must account in money for
the rent to his cotenants, and he cannot re-
quire them to take the notes received by him.
Pennsylvania. — Keisel i\ Earnest, 21 Pa.
St. 90; Schreiber f. National Transit Co., 21
Pa. Co. Ct. 657.
Rhode Island. — Almy v. Daniels, 15 R. I.
312, 4 Atl. 753, 10 Atl. 654.
South Carolina. — Pearson v. Carlton, 18
S. C. 47; Jones v. Massey, 14 S. C. 292.
Tennessee. — Renshaw L\ TuUahoma First
Xat. Bank, (Ch. App. 1900) 63 S. W.
194, holding that a tenant in common claim-
ing ownership of the entire property as
against the cotenant and taking exclusive
possession, must account for rents received
during the period of exclusion in excess of
the increased value of the premises due to
his improvement.
Tenas. — 'Autry v. Reasor, 102 Tex. 123, 108
S. W. 1162, 113 S. W. 748; Duke v. Reed, 64
Tex. 705; Osborn v. Osborn, 62 Tex. 495;
Stephens c. Hewitt, (Civ. App. 1903) 77
S. W. 229; Eastham v. Sims, 11 Tex. Civ.
App. 133, 32 S. W. 359.
Vermont. — Hayden v. Merrill, 44 Vt. 336,
8 Am. Rep. 372.
West Virginia. — Cecil v. Clark, 49 W. Va.
459, 39 S. E. 202 (holding that possession
having been taken of a coal mine by one
tenant in common thereof to the exclusion
of his cotenants and the mine having been
leased to a third party under a royalty, the ex-
cluded cotenant might require an accounting
to him for his just proportion of such roy-
alty as the proper measure of damages after
such waste) ; Williamson v. Jones, 43 W. Va.
562, 27 S. E. 411, 64 Am. St. Rep. 891, 38
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 67
the property be such as not to admit of its use and occupation by more than one,
and it is occupied by one of the tenants in common only; or if, although capable
of occupation by more than one, it is yet so used and occupied as in effect to
exclude the others, he so occupying will be held accountable to the others for
the rents and profits." Furthermore, if a tenant in common actually receives
more than his share of the rents and profits for or on the common property, or
some specific part thereof, such tenant is bound to account therefor proportion-
ately to the respective shares of his cotenants, even though his possession and
enjoyment of the common property be non-exclusive as to his cotenants; '^ and
L. E. A. 694; Ward f. Ward, 40 W. Va. 611,
21 S. E. 746, 52 Am. St. Eep. 911, 29 L. R. A.
449.
United States. — McGahan v. Eondout Bank,
156 U. S. 218, 15 S. Ct. 347, 39 L. ed. 403.
England. — Pascoe f. Swan, 27 Beav. 508,
5 Jur. N. S. 1235, 29 L. J. Ch. 159, 1 L. T.
Rep. N. S. 17, 8 Wkly. Rep. 130, 54 Eng.
Reprint 201.
Gwnada. — Mcintosh v. Ontario Bank, 19
Grant Ch. (U. C.) 155.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 84 et seq.
Compare Clark v. Jones, 49 Cal. 618.
They cannot offset their improvements
against the rent if they held adversely, even
believing in good faith their own title to be
the better. Bodkin v. Arnold, 48 W. Va.
108, 35 S. E. 980.
The collection of rents or profits is not an
act of ouster in itself, but it may amount to
an act of ouster in connection with other
acts in relation to the common property.
Morgan v. Mitchell, 104 Ga. 596, 30 S. E.
792; Busch V. Huston, 75 111. 343; Eobidoux
f. Cassilegi, 10 Mo. App. 516; Linker v. Benr
son, 67 N. C. 150; Bolton c. Hamilton, 2
Watts & S. (Pa.) 294, 37 Am. Dec. 509;
Lagorio v. Dozier, 91 Va. 492, 22 S. E. 239.
See also Moreira v. Schwan, 113 La. 643, 37
So. 542. And the mere fact of a tenant in
common having occupied the common prop-
erty will not of itself make him liable for an
occupation rent; for the effect of such a rule
would be that a tenant in common by merely
keeping out of the actual occupation of the
premises might convert his cotenant into his
bailiff and prevent him from occupying the
premises, excepting upon the payment of
rent. Lyles v. Lyles, 1 Hill Eq. (S. C.) 76.
The non-occupying cotenants may jointly
or severally have an account, not only of the
rents received but also of those which would
have been realized by prudent management.
Chambers v. Jones, 72 111. 275.
A tenant of land claiming under a tenant
in common adversely to other tenants in com-
mon will, in respect to rents and profits, be
treated as tenant in common of the latter,
and hence will not be charged with profits,
which he has not received, if he has acted in
good faith with a view to make the property
profitable. Ruffners v. Lewis, 7 Leigh (Va.)
720, 30 Am. Dec. 513.
A decree in partition ousting certain co-
tenants from possession being reversed on
appeal five- years later and the ousted co-
tenants being decreed one half of the prop-
erty, a suit in equity for an accounting
against the one remaining in possession was
held to be proper. Bates v. Hamilton, 144
Mo. 1, 45 S. W. 641, 66 Am. St. Rep. 407.
Where a tenant in common solely operated
the common property under a mistake of law
as to his alleged superior title he was held
to account for the fair annual rental of the
property with legal interest, less taxes paid
by him. Nott v. Owen, 86 Me. 98, 29 Atl.
943, 41 Am. St. Eep. 525; Euflfners v. Lewis,
7 Leigh (Va.) 720, 30 Am. Dec. 513; Bodkin
V. Arnold, 48 W. Va. 108, 35 S. E. 980.
A receiver may be appointed in case of
ouster between cotenants (Sandford v. Bal-
lard, 33 Beav. 401, 10 Jur. N. S. 251, 33
L. J. Ch. 450, 55 Eng. Reprint 423), except-
ing in cases where the coownership of the
mine is really a copartnership; in which
event it may be necessary to ask for a, dis-
solution as part of the remedy before equity
will entertain such a bill (Roberts t. Eber-
hardt, Kay 148, 23 L. J. Ch. 201, 2 Wkly.
Rep. 125, 69 Eng. Reprint 63).
72. Nebraska. — Names v. Names, 48 Nebr.
701, 67 N. W. 751.
New Jersey. — Wickoff v. Wickoff, (Ch.
1889) 18 Atl. 74; Izard v. Bodine, 11 N. J.
Eq. 403, 69 Am. Dec. 595.
Rhode Island. — Knowles f. Harris, 5 R. I.
402, 73 Am. Dec. 77.
Vermont. — Hayden v. Merrill, 44 Vt. 336,
8 Am. Rep. 372.
Virginia. — Newman v. Newman, 27 Gratt.
714; Graham v. Pierce, 19 Gratt. 28, 100 Am.
Dec. 658; Early f. Friend, 16 Gratt. 21, 78
Am. Dec. 649.
Wisconsin. — McKinley v. Weber, 37 Wis.
279.
England. — Pascoe v. Swan, 27 Beav. 508,
5 Jur. N. S. 1235, 29 L. J. Ch. 159, 1 L. T.
Rep. N. S. 17, 8 Wkly. Rep. 130, 54 Eng.
Reprint 201.
But only for the time of actual exclusive
occupation. — Baylor o. Hopf, 81 Tex. 637, 17
S. W. 230.
Where a cotenant had no means of obtain-
ing his just share without at the same time
taking that of his cotenants, it was held
that the value of the share of his cotenants
as he found it was a just basis of account.
Coleman's Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 252.
73. Alabama. — McCaw v. Barker, 115 Ala.
543, 22 So. 131; Pope v. Harkins, 16 Ala.
321.
California. — Abel v. Love, 17 Cal. 233.
Georgia.— Shiels v. Stark, 14 Ga. 429.
Illinois. — Regan v. Regan, 192 111. 589, 61
[III, F, 2, a]
68 [38 CycJ TENANCY IN COMMON
it is immaterial that said rents or profits so received accrued from a portion of the
N. E. 842; Woolley v. Schrader, 116 111. 29,
4 N. E. 658, under 1 Starr & C. c. 2, § 2,
cl. 1.
Indiana. — Sohissel v. Dickson, 129' Ind.
139, 28 N. E. 540, under Rev. St. (1881)
§ 288.
Iowa. — German v. Heath, 139 Iowa 52,
116 N. W. 1051.
Maine. — • Cutler v. Currier, 54 Me. 81, un-
der St. (1848) e. 61, § 1.
Massachusetts. — Peclc v. Carpenter, 7 Gray
283, 66 Am. Dec. 477; Sargent v. Parsons,
12 Mass. 149.
Michigan. — Eighmey v. Thayer, 135 Mich.
682, 98 N. W. 734, 66 L. E. A. 915, holding
that a tenant in common receiving the rents
and profits is bound to account to his co-
tenants therefor, although ignorant of their
title, and although he expended them in sup-
porting his grantor according to contract with
him.
Montana. — Ayotte v. Nadeau, 32 Mont.
498, 81 Pac. 145.
Keio Hampshire. — Gage v. Gage, 66 N. H.
282, 29 Atl. 543, 28 L. E. A. 829, holding
the obligation to so account to be part of the
community of duty produced by the commu-
nity of interest.
Xew Jersey. — Lloyd r. Turner, 70 N. J.
Eq. 425, 62 Atl. 771; Buckelew r. Snedeker,
27 N. J. Eq. 82.
ft'eic York.— Clark v. Piatt, 39 N. Y. App.
Div. 670, 58 N. Y. Suppl. 361; Gedney f. Ged-
ney, 19 N. Y. App. Div. 407, 46 N. Y. Suppl.
590 [affirmed in 160 N. Y. 471, 55 N. E. 1]
(where an agreement having been made be-
tween tenants in common, each owning one
half of the real property, that eacli should
collect one half of the rents, one of them
having collected more than one half of the
rents was held liable to the other) ; Eose-
boom t. Roseboom, 15 Hun 309 [affirmed in
81 N. Y. 356]; Wright v. Wright, 59 How.
Pr. 176.
North Carolina. — Northcot v. Casper, 41
N. C. 303.
Pennsylvania. — Keisel v. Earnest, 21 Pa.
St. 90.
Rhode Island. — White r. Eddy, 19 E. I.
108, 31 Atl. 823; Hazard v. Albro, 17 E. I.
181, 20 Atl. 834; Almy v. Daniels, 15
E. I. 312, 4 Atl. 753, 10 Atl. 654.
South Carolina. — Pearson v. Carlton, 18
S. C. 47.
Tennessee. — Eenshaw r. Tullahoma First
Nat. Bank, (Ch. App., 1900) 63 S. W. 194.
Texas. — Logan v. Eobertson, ( Civ. App.
1904) 83 S. W. 395.
Virginia. — Early v. Friend, 16 Gratt. 21,
78 Am. Dec. 649.
West Virginia. — Cecil v. Clark, 49 W. Va.
459, 39 S. E. 202.
England.— Clegg v. Clegg, 3 Giffard 322, S
Jur. N. S. 92, 31 L. J. Ch. 153, 5 L. T. Rep.
N. S. 441, 10 Wkly. Eep. 75, 66 Eng. Reprint
433.
Canada. — Re Kirkpatrick, 10 Ont. Pr. 4;
Eice V. George, 20 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 221.
[III. F, 2, a]
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 83 et seq.
Mines and minerals. — A tenant in common
quarrying and removing, or removing min-
erals or other products of mines or wells
from the common property, thereby becomes
liable to account to his cotenants for their
damages and profits, if any, of the transac-
tions, according to their proportionate shares
thereof. McCord v. Oakland Quicksilver Min.
Co., 64 Cal. 134, 27 Pac. 863, 49 Am. Eep.
686; Murley v. Ennis, 2 Colo. 300; Huff f.
McDonald, 22 Ga. 131, 68 Am. Dec. 487;
Richardson v. Richardson, 72 Me. 403 ; Childs
f. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 117 Mo. 414, 23
S. W. 373; Gregg t. Roaring Springs Land,
etc., Co., 97 Mo. App. 44, 70 S. W. 920; Smith
r. Woodman, 28 N. H. 520; Switzer v. Swit-
zer, 57 N. J. Eq. 421, 41 Atl. 486; Abbey v.
Wheeler, 170 N. Y. 122, 62 K E. 1074; Cos-
griff v. Dewey, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 129, 47
N. Y. Suppl. 255 [affirmed in 164 N. Y. 1, 58
N. E. 1, 79 Am. St. Eep. 620] ; St. John v.
Coates, 63 Hun (N. Y.) 460, 18 N. Y. Suppl.
419 [affirmed in 140 N. Y. 634, 35 N. E.
891] ; Johnston v. Price, 172 Pa. St. 427, 33
Atl. 688; Winton Coal Co. f. Pancoast Coal
Co., 170 Pa. St. 437, 33 Atl. 110; Given v.
Kelly, 85 Pa. St. 309; Irvine i. Hanlin, 10
Serg. & E. (Pa.) 219; Cecil f. Clark, 44
W. Va. 659, 30 S. E. 216; Williamson v.
Jones, 43 W. Va. 562, 27 S. E. 411, 64 Am.
St. Eep. 891, 38 L. E. A. 694; McDodrill v.
Pardee, etc.. Lumber Co., 40 W. Va. 564, 21
S. E. 878; Clegg I. Clegg, 3 Giffard 322, 8
Jur. N. S. 92, 31 L. J. Ch. 153, 5 L. T. Eep.
N. S. 441, 10 Wkly. Eep. 75, 66 Eng. Reprint
433; Denys v. Shuckburgh, 5 Jur. 21, 4
Y. & C. Exch. 42; Curtis v. Coleman, 22
Grant Ch. (U. C.) 561; Goodenow v. Far-
quhar, 19 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 614. And tlie
one leasing the common property is only en-
titled to his proportionate share of the rents
and profits thereof. Barnum v. Landon, 25
Conn. 137. If there be no damage to the
interests of the respective cotenants, and if
they have no interests in the profits arising
from the operation of the common property
by one cotenant, then they cannot charge the
operating cotenant therefor in an accounting.
Clark v. Jones, 49 Cal. 618; Cosgriff f. Dewey,
21 N. Y. App. Div. 129, 47 N. Y. Suppl. 255
[affirmed in 164 N. Y. 1, 58 N. E. 1, 79 Am.
St. Rep. 620].
In Pennsylvania, under the act of June 24,
1895 (Pamphl. Laws 237), payment of rent
by one tenant in common to the others may
be settled in a partition proceeding. Heft's
Estate, 9 Kulp 337.
The cotenant must have received more
than his share, not merely on a single article,
but of the entire profits of the estate, after
deducting all reasonable charges; and in an
action against him therefor, it must appear
that the balance is due to plaintiff in said
action, not to the other cotenants; and the
same rule applies as to contribution for ex-
penditures. Gowen v. Shaw, 40 Me. 56;
TENAISOY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc.J 69
common property or a partial use thereof, instead of all,'^ or whether or not the
production of rents or profits was caused by the acts of such occupying tenant,'^
and where an arrangement has been made between cotenants, merely for con-
venience, that each shall collect his proportionate part of the rents, there is no
estoppel on the part of either of them to claim his share of excess collected by
the other.'" But if a tenant in common receives rent, income, or profits from a
Hardy f. Sprowl, 33 Me. 508; Shepard v.
Eichards, 2 Gray (Mass.) 424, 61 Am. Dec.
473.
If a proper set-off be declared, and it is
found that plaintiff's share is insufficient to
satisfy such a set-oflF, defendant should he
allowed judgment for the excess. Dewing t.
Dewing, 165 Mass. 230, 42 N. E. 1128.
Kent paid in permanent improvements on
the land is not chargeable as profits received
by the cotenant. Hannan f. Osborn, 4 Paige
(N. Y.) 336; Walker f. Humbert, 55 Pa. St.
407.
The grantee of the interest of one tenant
in common must account for the income of
so much of the common property as was
productive at the time of his purchase and
taking possession, even though it was ren^
dered productive by the occupying cotenant
of whom he purchased. Hancock v. Day,
McMuU. Eq. (S. C.) 69, 36 Am. Dec. 293.
A mortgagee in possession of the common
property by virtue of a mortgage given by
one tenant in common is in no better position
than his grantor, and therefore he is ac-
countable to the other cotenants for the in-
come in his hands before any application can
be made thereof to the mortgage. Fuher v.
Buckeye Supply Co., 5 Ohio S. & C. PI. Dec.
187, 7 Ohio N. P. 420. See also Mcintosh v.
Ontario Bank, 19 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 155.
Tenants in common may each maintain a
separate action for their respective shares of
the excess of rents and profits received by
virtue or under claim of the cotenancy.
Smith V. Wiley, 22 Ala. 396, 58 Am. Dec.
262; Barnum v. Landon, 25 Conn. 137.
Where a tenant in common gives credit
for the rental or sale of the property under
circumstances where he should have demanded
cash, he will be chargeable as though he had
received cash in the premises. Hammer u.
Johnson, 44 111. 192; Denys %. Shuckburgh,
5 Jur. 21, 4 Y. & C. Exch. 42.
If insurance money be paid to a tenant in
common who has insured solely for his own
benefit, without any interference with the
rights of his cotenants, the tenant insuring
is entitled to appropriate the insurance money
to his own benefit. Mcintosh v. Ontario
Bank, 20 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 24. But if it be
apparent that the insurance was for the com-
mon benefit he must account therefor. Starks
V. Sikes, 8 Gray (Mass.) 609, 69 Am. Dec.
270; Briggs v. Call, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 504.
Conversely, he is not entitled to contribution
for insurance money paid by him in the ab-
sence of a showing that such payment was
for the common benefit. Farrand V. Gleason,
56 Vt. 633.
The widow of a tenant in common of real
estate cannot be charged with amounts re-
ceived by him, he having in his lifetime re-
ceived an undue share of the rents and profits
of the common estate, and died after the
filing of a bill for an accounting against liim.
Allen t. Bayliss, 2 MacArthur (D. C.)
180.
Liability of heir. — An action of account
by a tenant in common for rents collected
by the heirs' common ancestor during his
lifetime should not be entertained, although
an action for rents collected by the heirs
would lie. Brittinum v. Jones, 56 Ark. 624,
20 S. W. 520. In the absence of statute or
agreement to the contrary, claims and judg-
ments against a decedent's estate should not
be charged in an accounting between heirs
of said decedent, even though the administra-
tor of said estate be a tenant in common with
such heirs; because such claims and judg-
ments are properly chargeable against the
estate in the hands of the administrator and
not against heirs. Havey v. Kelleher, 36
N. Y. App. Div. 201, 56 N. Y. Suppl. 889.
Where a statute provides for a measure
of damages arising out of sole occupation
of property, such statute is enforceable.
Knowles v. Harris, 5 R. I. 402, 73 Am. Deo.
77.
74. Wickoff 1-. Wickofli, (N. J. Ch. 1889)
18 Atl. 74; Joslyn v. Joslyn, 9 Hun (N. Y.)
388; Hobnes f. Best, 58 Vt. 547, 5 Atl. 385,
so holding even though the portion so rented
does not exceed the portion that such lessor
would be entitled to on partition. But see
Scantlin f. Allison, 32 Kan. 376, 4 Pac. 618;
Eagan r. McCoy, 29 Mo. 356.
7.5. Stephens v. Taylor, (Tex. Civ. App.
1896) 36 S. W. 1083.
Damages recovered by one tenant in com-
mon in trespass in relation to the common
property inure to the benefit of his cotenants
and they can compel an accounting. Becnel
V. Waguespack, 40 La. Ann. 109, 3 So. 536.
What the leasehold would be worth in the
open market is the proper test to determine
whether one has received more than an equal
share, and where the sole issue is the assess-
ment of a proper rent, it is immaterial what
elements may have contributed to the iiu-
crease of rental value. Shiels f. Stark, 14
Ga. 429. See also McCrum y. McCrum, 36
Ind. App. 636, 76 N. E. 415. Proof that in-
crease in rental value of the common prop-
erty was due to improvements made by de-
fendant, where there is no offer to prove the
amount of such increase, is immaterial. Wal-
ter V. Greenwood, 29 Minn. 87, 12 N. W.
145.
76. Feniton v. Miller, 116 Mich. 45, 74
N. W. 384, 72 Am. St. Rep. 502; Switzer V.
Switzer, 57 N. J. Eq. 421, 14 Atl. 486; Gedney
f. Gedney, 160 N. Y. 471, 55 N. E. 1.
[Ill, F, 2, a]
ro [38 Cyc]
TENANCY IN COMMON
third person in excess of his share, in good faith, he is generally held liable to
account therefor only for what he has actually received more than his just share
or proportion, and not for the rental value of the property or what he might have
received," and if the occupying cotenant merely occupies the common land with-
77. Alabama. — McCaw v. Barker, 115 Ala.
643, 22 So. 131.
California. — Howard v. Throckmorton, 59
Cal. 79; Abel v. Love, 17 Cal. 233.
Connecticut. — Barnuin r. Landon, 25 Conn.
137.
Georgia. — Huff v. McDonald, 22 Ga. 131,
68 Am. Dec. 487.
Illinois. — Regan v. Regan, 192 111. 589, 61
N. E. 842; Stenger v. Edwards, 70 111. 631;
Cheney v. Ricks, 87 111. App. 388 laffirmed
In 187 111. 171, 58 N. E. 234].
loica. — Van Ormer c. Harley, 102 Iowa
150, 71 N. W. 241; Reynolds v. Wilmeth, 45
Iowa 693.
Kentucky. — Talbott v. Todd, 5 Dana 190;
Hixon 1-. Bridges, 38 S. W. 1046, 18 Ky. L.
Rep. 1068.
Maryland. — Hamilton !;. Conine, 28 Md.
635, 92 Am. Dec. 724.
Massachusetts. — Dewing t. Dewing, 165
Mass. 230, 42 N. E. 1128; Mayhew f. Durfee,
138 Mass. 584; Shepard v. Richards, 2 Gray
424, 61 Am. Dec. 473.
Michigan. — Miner v. Lorman, 70 Mich. 173,
38 X. W. 18; Fuller v. Sweet, 30 Mich. 237,
18 Am. Rep. 122.
Missouri. — Bates f. Hamilton, 144 Mo. 1,
45 S. W. 641, 66 Am. St. Rep. 407.
Sew Jersey. — Barrell i'. Barrcll, 25 N. J.
Eq. 173.
'New York. — Adams v. Bristol, 126 N. Y.
App. Div. 660, 111 N. Y. Suppl. 231; Clark
f. Piatt, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 670, 58 N. Y.
Suppl. 361; Roseboom v. Roseboom, 15 Hun
309 [affirmed in 81 N. Y. 356] ; 'Dresser v.
Dresser, 40 Barb. 300; Woolever r. Knapp,
18 Barb. 265; JIatter of Lucy, 4 Misc. 349,
24 N. Y. Suppl. 352; Wright v. Wright, 59
How. Pr. 176; Burrell v. Bull, 3 Sandf. Ch.
15.
North Carolina. — Northcot v. Casper, 41
N. C. 303.
Pennsylvania. — North Pennsylvania Coal
Co. i\ Snowden, 42 Pa. St. 488, 82 Am. Dec.
530; Keisel v. Earnest, 21 Pa. St. 90; Jevons
v. Kline, 9 Kulp 305.
Rhode Island.— White v. Eddy, 19 R. I.
108, 31 Atl. 823; Almy v. Daniels, 15 R. I.
312, 4 Atl. 753, 10 Atl. 654.
South Carolina.— Griffin v. Griffin, 82 S. C.
256, 64 S. E. 160; Cain v. Cain, 53 S. C.
350, 31 S. E. 278, 69 Am. St. Rep. 863;
Pearson v. Carlton, 18 S. C. 47; Jones v.
Massey, 14 S. C. 292; Volentine v. Johnson,
1 Hill Eq. 49.
Tennessee. — Renshaw v. Tullahoma First
Nat. Bank, (Ch. App. 1900) 63 S. W. 194.
Texas. — Mahon v. Barnett, (Civ. App.
1897) 45 S. W. 24; Gillum v. St. Louis,
etc., R. Co., 4 Tex. Civ. App. 622, 23 S. W.
716.
Vermont. — Hayden f. Merrill, 44 Vt. 336,
8 Am. Rep. 372.
Virginia. — Moorman v. Smoot, 28 Gratt.
[Ill, F. 2, a]
80; Early v. Friend, 16 Gratt. 21, 78 Am.
Dec. 649; Ruflners v. Lewis, 7 Leigh 720, 30
Am. Dec. 513.
West Virginia.— Cecil v. Clark, 49 W. Va.
459, 39 S. E. 202; Williamson v. Jones, 43
W. Va. 562, 27 S. E. 411, 64 Am. St. Rep.
891, 38 L. R. A. 694; Ward v. Ward, 40
W. Va. 611, 21 S. E. 746, 52 Am. St. Rep.
911, 29 L. R. A. 449.
United States. — McGahan v. Rondout Nat.
Bank, 156 U. S. 218, 15 S. Ct. 347, 39 L. ed.
403; Dangerfield i: Caldwell, 151 Fed. 554,
81 C. C. A. 400.
England. — Henderson v. Eason, 17 Q. B.
701, 16 Jur. 518, 21 L. J. Q. B. 82, 79 E. C. L.
701; Beer v. Beer, 12 C. B. 60, 16 Jur.
223, 21 L. J. C. P. 124, 74 E. C. L. 60;
Montgomery v. Swan, 9 Ir. Ch. 131; Leake
i\ Cordeaux, 4 Wkly. Rep. 806.
Canada. — Re Kirkpatrick, 10 Ont. Pr. 4;
Curtis V. Coleman, 22 Grant Ch. (U. C.)
561; Mcintosh v. Ontario Bank, 20 Grant
Ch. (U. C.) 24; Goodenow v. Farquhar, 19
Grant Ch. (U. C.) 614.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 83 et seq.
See also note to Gage v. Gage, 28 L. R. A.
829.
The burden is upon plaintiff to show the
net amount of rent received. Gowen v.
Shaw, 40 Me. 56; Joslyn v. Joslyn, 9 Hun
(N. Y.) 388. The proving of contracts of
rent iixing the amount to be paid to de-
fendant prima facie meets said Durden and
shifts the onus of proving what he did not
receive upon defendant. Tarleton v. Gold-
thwaite, 23 Ala. 346, 58 Am. Dec. 296.
Pasturage. — Under a statute that recovery
may be had for rents and profits received
from the common estate " according to the
justice and equity of the case," it is held
that recovery might be had for pasturage.
West V. Weyer, 46 Ohio St. 66, 18 N. E.
537, 15 Am. St. Rep. 552.
Duty to keep accounts. — If a tenant in
common is in a position where he may be re-
quired to account, it is his duty to keep ac-
curate accounts of his income, expenses, and
receipts; and upon failing to do so his co-
tenants will be entitled to prove such items
by expert testimony, or the amount of rent
to be charged by evidence of the rental value
of the common property. McCaw r. Barker,
115 Ala. 543, 22 So. 131; Bovee v. Boyce,
124 Mich. 696, 83 N. W. 10"l3 ; Bates r.
Hamilton, 144 Mo. 1, 45 S. W. 641, 66 Am.
St. Rep. 407; Cain t\ Cain, 53 S. C. 350,
31 S. E. 278, 69 Am. St. Rep. 863. Partial
accounts stated and rendered to each other
are inadmissible, unless the litigant so offer-
ing said account will consent to open the
whole state of accounts between the parties.
Prentiss r. Roberts, 49 Me. 127. In the ab-
sence of statute or rule to the contrary, or
of objection properly made, vouchers with
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cye.J 71
but any ouster of his fellows he should, if liable for rent, be charged only with
rent for so much of the land as was capable of producing rent when he took pos-
session, and he should neither be charged with rent for the land rendered pro-
ductive by him nor is he entitled to allowance for improvements."
b. Interest; Costs. A tenant in common coming into possession of more
than his just share and proportion of the rents, income, or profits, is not, in the
absence of some wrongful conduct on his part in regard thereto, chargeable with
interest on the shares of his cotenants." The rule is otherwise if the withholding
is wrongful, as where the cotenant holds adversely, or after demand and refusal; *°
and a cotenant holding adversely may be liable for the interest on the income,
rents, and profits collected and withheld, although he has received no such
interest." A tenant in common wrongfully failing to account is usually personally
liable for the costs incurred in an action at law or in equity.'^
the usual affidavit of verification are suffl-
oient prima facie proof of the matt<»is in
issues therein contained. In re Curry, 25
Ont. App. 267 [affirming 17 Ont. Pr. 379].
Claim of cotenant personal. — The share
of such tenant in common in the income of
the common property is a debt due to him-
self from the cotenant who receives such in-
come and does not pass to his grantee upon
the sale of his interest in the premises, or
to his devisee or heir at law upon his death.
Hannan u. Osborn, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 336.
But if, pending a, suit by several alleged
tenants in common against a cotenant for
establishment of title and rents, one of
plaintiffs quitclaims to the other, the rents
due to the former pass to the latter. La
Master v. Dickson, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 473, 43
S. W. 911.
The lessee of the interest of one tenant in
common, occupying the whole estate and not
attorning to the other tenants in common,
to whose occupation of said estate he has
never objected, is in the same position as
his lessor. Badger v. Holmes, 6 Gray (Mass.)
118.
Where an estate is divided between three
devisees, one of whom receives designated
realty, on which he enters and enjoys the
rents and profits, and all three are tenants
in common in the remainder in certain pro-
portions, the income from the remainder
should be divided among the three in pro-
portion to their shares as tenants in com-
mon. Moseley v. Bolster, 201 Mass. 135, 87
N. E. 606.
78. Shiels v. Stark, 14 Ga. 429; Carver v.
Fennimore, 116 Ind. 236, 19 N. E. 103; Han-
cock V. Day, McMull. Eq. (S. C.) 298 ; Thomp-
son V. Bostick, McMull. Eq. (S. C.) 75. See
Baylor v. Hopf, 81 Tex. 637, 17 S. W. 230.
The true measure of damages is based on
the idea of compensation for the actual loss
sustained by plaintiff in being deprived of
the use of his possession. Even though de-
fendant, with knowledge of plaintiff's title,
actually believed that he, defendant, had the
better title, such holding could not be called
lona fide, because it arose from ignorance of
the law, and not from ignorance of the fact.
Bodkin V. Arnold, 48 W. Va. 108, 35 S. E.
980.
79. Chene) v. Kicks, 87 111. App. 388
[affirmed in 187 111. 171, 58 N. E. 234],
where he was awaiting the determination of
an adverse claim.
80. Alabama. — Tarleton v. Goldthwaite,
23 Ala. 346, 58 Am. Dec. 296.
Kentucky. — Barnes v. Barnes, 72 S. W.
282, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1732.
Missouri. — Bates v. Hamilton, 144 Mo. 1,
45 S. W. 641, 66 Am. St. Rep. 407.
New York. — Scott v. Guernsey, 60 Barb.
163 [affirmed in 48 N. Y. 106].
Worth Carolina. — Jolly v. Bryan, 86 N. 0.
457.
Pennsylvania. — Sieger v. Sieger, 209 Pa.
St. 65, 58 Atl. 140 (interest charged from
the time when money should have been paid
over after allowing a reasonable time for
settlement) ; McGowan v. Bailey, 179 Pa.
St. 470, 36 Atl. 325.
Virginia. — Early V. Friend, 16 Gratt. 21,
78 Am. Dec. 649.
We-it Virginia. — Vance v. Evans, 11 W.
Va. 342.
81. Bates v. Hamilton, 144 Mo. 1, 45 S. W.
641, 66 Am. St. Rep. 407; Armijo v. Neher,
11 N. M. 645, 72 Pac. 12; White i". Eddy,
19 R. I. 108, 31 Atl. 823.
Where a statute provided that a tenant in
common platting the common lands and pay-
ing taxes thereon should receive certain
moneys, and one of the cotenants so platted
the lands and paid the taxes and received
the moneys he was not liable to his co-
tenant for any part of the moneys so re-
ceived. Howard c. Donahue, 60 Cal. 264.
One in possession of common land believ-
ing himself to be the sole owner is not en-
titled to be reimbursed for a proportionate
share of the cost of substantial and valuable
improvements made thereon by him; he may
only reimburse himself out of rents and
profits received. Gregg v. Patterson, 9
Watts & S. (Pa.) 197.
Demand unnecessary.— Where a tenant
in common retains the portion of the pro-
ceeds of the common property to which his
cotenant is entitled, for an unreasonable
time, he is chargeable with interest, although
no demand has been made for such portion.
McGowan v. Bailey, 179 Pa. St. 470, 36 Atl.
325.
83. Croasdale t: Von Boyneburgk, 206 Pa.
St. 15, 55 Atl. 770.
[Ill, F, 2. b]
72 [38 Cye.J
TENANCY IN COMMON
e. Lien. The claim of one tenant in common against his cotenant for rent,
income, or profits being only a personal charge,*^ it is generally held that no lien
attaches to the interest of a cotenant in the common property for income, rents,
and profits collected by such cotenant; " and no such lien attaches as against a
hona fide purchaser of the interest of such cotenant.*^ In some cases, however,
an equitable lien is recognized,*^ which is superior to a claim of general creditors,*'
but inferior to a deed of trust to secure a vendor's lien.** But even where such
a claim is called an equitable lien, it is nevertheless held that it is only a personal
charge upon the debtor tenant.*' A statute giving a lien for rent on growing
crops in possession of a lessee has no application to crops belonging to a cotenant
in possession by \drtue of such cotenancy.'"
G. Agreements and Conveyances Between Cotenants. Tenants in
common may contract with each other concerniag the use of the common prop-
erty,'^ and agreements between them, their heirs, personal representatives, and
83. Pape v. Schofield, 77 Hun (X. Y.)
236, 28 X. Y. Suppl. 340 [affirmed in 145
X. Y. 598, 40 X"^. E. 164].
84. Alaiama. — Newbold -v. Smart, 67 Ala.
326.
Arkansas. — Dunavant v. Fields, 68 Ark.
534, 60 S. W. 420; JIcKneely i: Terry, 61
Ark. 527, 33 S. TT. 953; Brittinum v. Jones,
56 Ark. 624, 20 S. W. 520 ; Hamby i\ Wall,
48 Ark. 135, 2 S. W. 705, 3 Am. St. Kep.
218; Bertrand f. Tavlor, 32 Ark. 470.
Georgia.— Fo^e t. 'Tift, 69 Ga. 741.
Illinois. — Stenger v. Edwards, 70 111. 631.
Maryland. — Flack v. Gosnell, 76 ild. 88,
24 Atl. 414, 35 Am. St. Eep. 413, 16 L. E. A.
547.
Mississippi. — Burns r. Dreyfus, 69 Miss.
211, 11 So. 107, 30 Am. St. Rep. 539.
Yeto York. — See Scott r. Guernsey, 60
Barb. 163 [affirmed in 48 X. Y'. 106].
South Carolina. — Vaughan v. Lanford, 81
S. C. 282, 62 S. E. 316, 128 Am. St. Rep.
912; Cain v. Cain. 53 S. C. 350, 31 S. E.
278, 69 Am. St. Rep. 863.
Teatas.— Kalteyer i\ Wipff, 92 Tex. 673,
52 S. W. 63; La Master v. Dickson, 17 Tex.
Civ. App. 473, 43 S. W. 911.
West Virginia. — Williamson r. Jones, 43
W. Va. 562, 27 S. E. 411, 64 Am. St. Rep.
891, 38 L. R. A. 694.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," §§ 81, 87.
85. Flack r. Gosnell, 76 JId. 88, 24 Atl.
414, 35 Am. St. Rep. 413, 16 L. R. A. 547;
Burns i\ Dreyfus, 69 Miss. 211, 11 So. 107,
30 Am. St. Rep. 539. See also Beck i: Kall-
mever, 42 Mo. App. 563.
86. Pitman r. Smith, 135 X'. Y. App. Div.
904, 120 X. Y. Suppl. 193; Wriglit r. Wright,
59 How. Pr. (X. Y.) 176; Flach v. Zander-
son, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 91 S. W. 348.
See Pape v. Schofield, 77 Hun (N. Y.) 236,
28 XT. Y. Suppl. 340 [affirm^ in 145 N. Y.
598, 40 X. E. 164].
Coparceners see Beck v. Kallmeyer, 42 Mo.
App. 563; Scott r. Guernsey, 60 Barb.
(X. Y.) 163 [affirmed in 48 N. Y. 106];
Wright 1-. Wright, 59 How. Pr. (X^. Y.) 176.
87. Matter of Lucy, 4 Misc. (N. Y.) 349,
24 X. Y. Suppl. 352.
88. Flach v. Zanderson, (Tex. Civ. App.
1905) 91 S. W. 348.
[Ill, F, 2, e]
89. Matter of Lucy, 4 Misc. (X". Y.) 349,
24 N. Y. Suppl. 352; Hannan r. Osborn, 4
Paige (X". Y.) 336. See Pope f. Tift, 69
Ga. 741.
90. Kennon r. Wright, 70 Ala. 434.
91. Alabama. — Long r. Grant, 163 Ala.
507, 50 So. 914.
California. — Hewlett v. Owens, 51 Cal.
570.
Delaware. — Burton r. Morris, 3 Harr. 269.
Hawaii. — Burrows i". Paaluhi, 4 Hawaii
464.
J/a»!P.— Smith v. Smith, 98 ile. 597, 57
Atl. 999; Whitten r. Hanson, 35 Me. 435.
Minnesota. — Schmidt v. Constans, 82
Minn. 347, 85 X". W. 173, 83 Am. St. Rep.
437.
Montana. — Ayotte v. Xadeau, 32 Mont.
498, 81 Pac. 145.
Yeio York. — Beeeher v. Bennett, 11 Barb.
374; Hudson r. Swan, 7 Abb. X. Gas. 324
[reversed on other grounds in 83 N. Y.
552].
Pennsylvania. — Coleman's Appeal, 62 Pa.
St. 252; Coleman i: Blewett, 43 Pa. St. 176;
Blewett r. Coleman, 40 Pa. St. 45; Coleman
V. Coleman, 19 Pa. St. 100, 57 Am. Dec. 641.
Texas. — Carleton v. Hausler, 20 Tex. Civ.
App. 275, 49 S. W. 118; Gurlev i: Dickason,
19 Tex. Civ. App. 203, 46 S. W. 53.
Tei-mot) t.— Turner c. Waldo, 40 Vt. 51.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 25 et seq.
They may exchange equities. Anony-
mous, Lofift 43, 98 Eng. Reprint 523.
Cotenants may appoint each other agent.
Fargo r. Owen, 79 Hun (X. Y.) 181, 29
X. Y. Suppl. 611. And where one tenant in
common acts in relation to the common prop-
erty as the agent of the other, he is answer-
able to such other as principal. Redington
r. Chase, 44 X*. H. 36, 82 Am. Dec. 189;
Switzer i\ Switzer, 57 X'. J. Eq. 421, 41 Atl.
486; Thompson's Appeal, 101 Pa. St. 225.
Heirs at law may contract with each other
in relation to the use and occupation of the
common property descending to them pre-
vious to its sale as directed by the testator.
In re Journey, 7 Del. Ch. 1, 44 Atl. 795.
Under an understanding between heirs of
an undivided estate that each is to manage
in the interest of all some specified part of
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cye.] 73
assigns, are as bmding as if between strangers, if they do not otherwise conflict
with the relationship of tenancy in common,*^ and the rights of the respective
parties are held to be enforceable either at law or in equity, for purposes of offense
or defense. '^
H. Estoppel Between Cotenants as to Common Title. A tenant in
common must act consistently in relation to the title under which he claims/*
the estate, one of such heirs Is not to be re-
garded as an agent, whose whole time must
be given to such interests during the con-
tinuance of the employment, to the exclu-
sion of his care for any separate enterprises
of his own. Pierce v. Pierce, 55 Mich. 629,
22 N. W. 81.
Conveyances.— One cotenant may legally
convey to his cotenant an interest in land by
the ordinary mode of conveyance. McClure
V. McCluxe, 1 Phila. (Pa.) 117. And one of
the cotenants becoming sole owner of the
common property and the rents issuing there-
from, from a joint lease, is entitled to
maintain such proceedings. Griffin v. Clark,
33 Barb. (N. Y.) 46.
An agreement to divide the proceeds of sale
between them is not a conveyance of land, or
a contract to convey land within registra-
tion acts. Strong v. Harris, 84 Hun (N. Y.)
314, 32 N. Y. Suppl. 349; Lenoir c. Valley
Elver Min. Co., 113 N. C. 513, 18 S. E. 73.
An agreement between cotenants with a
power of sale with an interest is not a mere
power of attorney, but in the nature of a
contract conveying the entire interest in the
land for the purpose stated. Carleton v.
Hausler, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 275, 49 S. W.
118. And so as to personalty. Barnes v.
Bartlett, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 71; Corbett v.
Lewis, 53 Pa. St. 322.
In a sale of personal property between co-
tenants there is no warranty of title. Dan-
forth v. Moore, 55 N. J. Eq. 127, 35 Atl.
410; Gurley V. Dickason, 19 Tex. Civ. App.
203, 46 S. W. 53.
92. Coleman ». Blewett, 43 Pa. St. 176;
Coleman v. Grubb, 23 Pa. St. 393; Niles v.
Carlton, 83 Vt. 261, 75 Atl. 266.
Where several grantees in common of the
light to take oil from land conveyed a part
of their respective interests to several others
under deeds containing certain limitations,
the limitations were held to be enforceable,
Thompson's Appeal, 101 Pa. St. 225. Com
pare Coleman's Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 252.
The word " minerals " in a deed of par
titiou between cotenants has been held to ex-
clude " free stone " unless it is mined ; it has
been held that " mining " depends on the in
tention of the parties. Darvill v. Roper, 3
Drew. 294, 3 Eq. Rep. 1004, 24 L. J. Ch,
779, 3 Wkly. Rep. 467, 61 Eng. Reprint 915;
Bell V. Wilson, 2 Dr. & Sm. 395, 34 L. J.
Ch. 572, 12 L. T. Rep. N. S. 529, 6 New Rep,
81, 13 Wkly. Rep. 708, 62 Eng. Reprint 671
[affirmed in L. R. 1 Ch. 303, 12 Jur. N. S,
263, 35 L. J. Ch. 337, 14 L. T. Rep. N. S,
115, 14 Wkly. Rep. 493].
03. Alabama. — Fullington v. Kyle Lumber
Co., 139 Ala. 242, 35 So. 852.
Massachusetts. — Keay v. Goodwin, 16
Mass. 1.
New York. — Beecher v. Bennett, 11 Barb.
374; Hudson v. Swan, 7 Abb. N. Gas. 324
[reversed on other grounds in 83 N. Y.
552].
North Carolina. — Bond v. Hilton, 44
N. C. 308, 59 Am. Dec. 552.
Tennessee. — Currens v. Lauderdale, 118
Tenn. 496, 101 S. W. 431.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 25 et seq.
Enforceable against grantee. — ^An agree-
ment between cotenants may be enforceable
against the grantee of one of them. Jones
V. Rose, 96 Md. 483, 54 Atl. 69; St. John v.
Coates, 63 Hun (N. Y.) 460, 18 N. Y. Suppl.
419 [affirmed in 140 N. Y. 634, 35 N. B.
891].
The leasing tenant in common may dis-
train against his lessee cotenant. Luther v,
Arnold, 8 Rich. (S. C.) 24, 62 Am. Dec. 422.
Tenants in common may vest each other
with the right of survivorship by deed inter
partes, but they cannot convert their hold-
ing into a technical joint tenancy, so as to
divest themselves of the right of partition
as tenants in common. Truesdell v. White,
13 Bush (Ky.) 616.
The relationship of cotenancy will be con-
sidered in the construction of a contract be-
tween the cotenants. Mylin v. King, 139
Ala. 319, 35 So. 998; Goldsborough v. Mar-
tin, 86 Md. 413, 38 Atl. 934; McCreery v.
Green, 38 Mich. 172.
94. A lahama. — Steed t". Knowles, 84 Ala.
205, 3 So. 897.
Georgia. — Ralph v. Ward, 109 Ga. 363, 34
S. E. 610.
Indiana. — Millis v. Roof, 121 Ind. 360,
23 N. E. 255.
Kansas. — Schoonover f. Tyner, 72 Kan.
475, 84 Pac. 124.
Maryland. — Funk v. Newcomer, 10 Md.
301.
New Hampshire. — Great Falls Co. i'.
Worster, 15 N. H. 412; Blake v. Milliken, 14
N. H. 213.
New Torlc. — Siglar i-. Van Riper, 10
Wend. 414.
North Carolina. — Mott i: Carolina Land,
etc., Co., 146 N. C. 525, 60 S. E. 423; Wood-
lief V. Woodlief, 136 N. C. 133, 48 S. E. 583.
Pennsylvania. — Sinclair v. Baker, 1 Del.
Co. 305.
Teccas.— Powers v. Minor, 87 Tex. 83, 26
S. W. 1071.
Canada. — Leech i:. Leech, 24 U. C. Q. B.
321.
The recitals in a joint deed by tenants in
common must be taken as relating only to
the several property of each grantor respec-
tively; therefore tliey will not be estopped
from showing any error or mistake that
may have been thus committed in relation
[III, H]
74 [38 Cye.]
TENANCY IN COMMON
and cannot assail that title/' nor can he litigate his own right of possession
of the common property, against his cotenant therein, whilst holding posses-
sion under a contract from said cotenant; *' and conversely, if he claims ouster
of his cotenants, he cannot afterward, in a suit between the same parties, claim
his original interest as tenant in common.'' A tenant in common is estopped
from claiming imder the common title if he has granted away his own rights and
ignored the rights of his cotenants in the common property. '' But a tenant in
common, in possession under a title other than that of cotenancy, is not estopped
from setting up an adverse possession based on such other title,"" as where he has
acquired title to the whole after his entry; ' nor, imder such circumstances, should
the mere purchase of a title of an alleged cotenant, to quiet title, work an estoppel.^
I. Respective Interests of Cotenants. Where a conveyance to pur-
chasers of a tenancy in common is sUent as to the interest of each, such interests
are ordinarily presumed to be equal.^ But such presumption is rebuttable.*
There is a presumption that purchasers of a common estate hold shares therein
in proportion to their contribution to the purchase-price, if the contributions to
the purchase-price be shown to have been unequal; but if the deed to purchasers
does not show their respective interests in the common property, the presumption
arising from the deed may be overcome by the presumption arising from the
amount of contribution.' It has been held that the possession of a cotenant is
ordinarily notice to a purchaser of the whole interest that such cotenant may
have in the estate." But mere possession by one who appears of record to be a-
to the title of the others of them respec-
tively. Sunderlin r. Struthers, 47 Pa. St.
411. A joint conveyance with warranty by
tenants in common has been held to be an
estoppel as against one of them who held
a mortgage from the other. Durham v.
Alden, 20 Me. 228, 37 Am. Dec. 48.
95. Arkansas. — Hershey v. Clark, 27 Ark.
527.
District of Columbia. — Morris v. Wheat, 11
App. Cas. 201.
Maryland. — Funk v. Xewcomer, 10 Md.
301.
Massachusetts. — Flagg c. Mann, 14 Pick.
467; Porter v. Hill, 9 Mass. 34, 6 Am. Dec.
22.
Mississippi. — Baker v. Richardson, (1909)
50 So. 447; Jonas v. Flanniken, 69 Miss.
577, 11 So. 319.
Sew York. — Burhans v. Van Zandt, 7 Barb.
91 Ireversed on other grounds in 7 N. Y.
523, Seld. 31]; Phelan i: Kelly, 25 Wend.
389; Jackson v. Streeter, 5 Cow. 529.
Texas. — Gray v. Kauffman, 82 Tex. 65, 17
S. W. 513. Compare York r. Hutchcson, 37
Tex. Civ. App. 367, 83 S. W. 895.
Vermont. — Braintree r. Battles, 6 Vt. 395.
Washington. — Cedar Canyon Consol. Min.
Co. r. Yarwood, 27 Wash. 271, 67 Pae. 749.
96. Hershey v. Clark, 27 Ark. 527; Jack-
son !,■. Creal, 13 Johns. (X. Y.) 116. But
see Tully v. Tully, 71 Cal. 338, 12 Pac. 246,
holding that if the title be apparently one
creating a tenancy in common, but not really
creating such tenancy, the party claiming
thereunder may litigate his own rights as
against that of his apparent cotenant, and
he is not estopped from setting up a good
title subsequently acquired by him.
97. Williams v. Sutton, 43 Cal. 65; Gregg
V. Blackmore, 10 Watts (Pa.) 192.
98. Reed v. Spicer, 27 Cal. 57.
[Ill, H]
99. Cooper v. Fox, 67 Miss. 237, 7 So. 342
(married woman cotenant setting up title in
her hiusband) ; Washington v. Conrad, 2
Humphr. (Tenn.) 562.
1. Chamberlain r. Ahrens, 55 Mich. Ill, 20
K W. 814; Xeher v. Armijo, 9 N. M. 325, 54
Pac. 236; Gilmer r. Beauchamp, 40 Tex. Civ.
App. 125, 87 S. W. 907.
2. Vasquez r. Ewing, 24 Mo. 31, 66 Am.
Dec. 694; Zapf v. Carter, 70 N. Y'. App. Div.
395, 75 N. Y. Suppl. 197; Navlor v. Foster,
44 Tex. Civ. App. 599, 99 S. W. 114; York v.
Hutcheson, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 367, 83 S. W.
895.
3. Keuper v. Mette, 239 111. 586, 88 X. E.
218; Markoe f. Wakeman, 107 111. 251; Gert-
ing v. Wells, 103 Md. 624, 64 Atl. 298, 433;
Campau r. Campau, 44 Mich. 31, 5 X. W.
1062.
4. Adams v. Leavens, 20 Conn. 73 ; Shiels
v. Stark, 14 Ga. 429; Jackson r. Moore, 94
N. Y. App. Div. 504, 87 N. Y. Suppl. 1101;
Gilmer r. Beauchamp, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 125,
87 S. W. 907; Cage v. Tucker, 14 Tex. Civ.
App. 316, 37 S. W. 180.
Damage proportioned to interests. — Dam-
ages caused to adjoining lands by the over-
flow of a reservoir owned in common are as-
sessed in proportion to the respective pro-
iprietary interests in said reservoir, even
though such damages were caused by repairs
or improvements made on such "reservoir
under a subscription agreement between the
several parties interested therein, in which
the amounts to be paid respectively were not
proportionate to the respective interests.
Dodge r. Wilkinson, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 292.
5. Bittle i: Clement, (N. J. Ch. 1903) 54
Atl. 138. Compare Anderson v. Clanch, (Tex.
1887) 6 S. W. 760.
6. Allen r. Anthony, 1 Meriv. 282, 15 Rev.
Rep. 113, 35 Eng. Reprint 679.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 75
tenant in common in the premises is not notice of a parol partition or agreement
for a partition so as to affect the rights of those claiming under him without notice.'
The respective interests of the cotenants cannot be determined in an action for
rent, but only in some possessory action.' Where title to part of a tract is
adversely acquired by a stranger, the portion thus lost will be the common loss
according to the respective interests of the coowners."
J. Remedies, Actions, and Proceedings — l. Account" — a. Nature and
Grounds of Remedy in General. At common law if one tenant in common occupied,
and took the whole profits, the other had no remedy against him whilst the tenancy
in common continued, unless he was put out of possession, when he might have his
ej ectment, or unless he appointed the other to be his bailiff as to his undivided moiety,
and the other accepted that appointment, when an action of account would lie, as
against a bailiff of the owner of the entirety of an estate.'' But accounting
between tenants in common may be now had either by bill in equity '^ or by an
action of account, at law, under the statute of Anne; ^^ and statutes based thereon
and substantially similar thereto, which provide that an action of account may
be maintained by one tenant in common against the other for receiving more
than his just share or proportion; " and in an action for possession by tenants
7. Ralph 1-. Ward, 109 Ga. 363, 34 S. E.
610; Allday t. Whitaker, 66 Tex. 669, 1 S. W.
794.
8. Miller i. Miller, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 133, 19
Am. Dec. 264; Ayotte t. Nadeau, 32 Mont.
498, 81 Pac. 145; Blake t. Milliken, 14 N. H.
213.-
9. Pipkin r. Allen, 29 Mo. 229.
10. Equitable accounting see in/ro. III,
.J, 1, d.
11. Maine. — Carter t. Bailey, 64 Me. 458,
18 Am. Rep. 273; Estey t. Boardman, 61 Me.
595.
Pennsylvania. — Irvine v. Hanlin, 10 Serg.
& R. 219; Kennedy's Estate, 1 Lack. Leg. N.
135.
Vermont.— Hsijden v. Merrill, 44 Vt. 336,
8 Am. Rep. 372; JlcCrillis v. Banks, 19 Vt.
442.
England. — Henderson v. Eason,' 17 Q. B.
701, 16 Jur. 518, 21 L. J. Q. B. 82, 79 E. C. L.
701; Beer v. Beer, 12 C. B. 60, 16 Jur. 223,
21 L. J. C. P. 124, 74 E. C. L. 60; Wheeler v.
Home, Willes 208.
Morton, 3 Nova
Connolly, 7 U. C.
Canada. — Freeman r.
Scotia 340; Gregory v.
Q. B. 500.
See also Peterson v. Kaanaana, 10 Hawaii
384.
12. See infra, III, J, 1, d.
13. St. 4 Anne, c. 16, § 27.
For full consideration of the statute of
Anne see Henderson v. Eason, 17 Quebec Q. B.
701 [reversing 12 Quebec- Q. B. 986]. See
also Kennedy's Estate, 1 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.)
135; Gregory v. Connolly, 7 U. C. Q. B. 500.
The statute has been held not to be in
force in some jurisdictions. See Pico v. Co-
lumbet, 12 Cal. 414, 73 Am. Dec. 550 ; Shiels
V. Stark, 14 Ga. 429; Ayotte v. Nadeau, 32
Mont. 498, 81 Pac. 145.
Concurrent jurisdiction. — As a general rule
statutes giving equity jurisdiction in matters
of account between cotenants do not deprive
the law courts of their jurisdiction, where
there are no other special circumstances for
the interference of equity and the issues be-
tween the parties litigant are simple. Carter
■V. Bailey, 64 Me. 458, 18 Am. Rep. 273 ; Blood
f. Blood, 110 Mass. 545; Winton Coal Co. v.
Pancoast Coal Co., 170 Pa. St. 437, 33 Atl.
110. But if the interest of plaintiff and the
amount to which he is entitled cannot be
determined without an accounting, a court of
equity may assume jurisdiction. Dvckman t.
Valiente, 42 N. Y. 549.
14. Arkansas. — Trapnall v. Hill, 31 Ark.
345.
Connecticut. — Brady v. Brady, 82 Conn.
424, 74 Atl. 684.
Georgia. — Neel v. Morris, 73 Ga. 406;
Shiels V. Stark, 14 Ga. 429.
Illinois.— Woolley f. Schrader, 116 111. 29,
4 N. E. 658 ; Henson v. Moore, 104 111. .403 ;
Stenger v. Edwards, 70 111. 631.
Indiana. — Schissel v. Dickson, 129 Ind.
139, 28 N. E. 540; McCrum v. McCrum, 36
Ind. App. 636, 76 N. E. 415.
Maine. — Cutler f. Currier, 54 Me. 81.
Michigan. — Moreland v. Strong, 115 Mich.
211, 73 N. W. 140, 69 Am. St. Rep. 553.
Minnesota. — Shepard v. Pettit, 30 Minn.
119, 14 N. W. 511.
Missouri. — Beck v. Kallmeyer, 42 Mo. App.
563.
Montana.— Ayotte v. Nadeau, 32 Mont.
498, 81 Pac. 145; Harrigan v. Lynch, 21
Mont. 36, 52 Pac. 642.
New York. — Gedney v. Gedney, 160 N. Y.
471, 55 N. E. 1; Hudson v. Swan, 83 N. Y.
552; Osborn f. Schenck, 83 N. Y. 201; Dyck-
man v. Valiente, 42 N. Y. 549; Cosgriff i'.
Dewey, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 129, 47 N. Y.
Soippl. 255 [affirmed in 164 N. Y. 1, 58 N. E.
1, 79 Am. St. Rep. 620_] ; Wright i'. Wright,
59 How. Pr. 176 (holding that an action of
account may be maintained where a tenant
in common receives the entire sales price for
the common property) ; Hannan v. Osborn, 4
Paige 336.
North Carolina. — Roberts v. Roberts, 55
N. C. 128.
[Ill, J, 1. a]
To [38 Cye.J
TENANCY IN COMMON
out of possession the court may appoint a reference to state an account between
the parties.^^ "Under the statute of Anne and similar statutes the action of account
mayHje had independently of any express agreement appointing the receiver
of the rents, profits, or income bailiff of his cotenants." If the tenant in cominon
receiving profits has committed waste or other tort, his cotenants may waive
the tort and require an accounting," and upon the ratification of a sale of personal
Rhode Island. — Almy v. Daniels, 15 R. I.
312, 4 Atl. 753, 10 Atl. 654.
Fermomt— Hayden v. Merrill, 44 Vt. 336,
8 Am. Rep. 372 (holding, however, that the
case must be brought within the statute by
proper allegations) ; Leach v. Seattle, 33 Vt.
195.
West Virginia. — Dodson v. Hays, 29 W. Va.
577, 2 S. E. 415.
England. — Thomas f. Thomas, 5 Exch. 28,
14 Jur. ISO, 19 L. J. Exeh. 175, 1 L. M. & P.
229; Denvs v. Shuckburgh, 5 Jur. 21, 4 Y. &
C. Exch. 42.
Canada. — Frost v. Disbrow, 12 N. Brunsw.
73; Wiggins v. White, 2 N. Brunsw. 97.
See note to Gage v. Gage, 28 L. R. A. 829.
Tenants for years. — A statutory action of
account between cotenants may be inappli-
cable to tenants for years; in such a statute
the words " real estate " may be held to have
no application to " chattels real." Wells v.
Becker, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 174.
Statutory and common-law bailiff distin-
guished. — The cotenant receiving more than
his just share or proportion ipso facto makes
him bailiff under the statute, but he is not
answerable thereunder as a bailiff would
have been at common law for what he might
have made in the absence of wilful default.
Irvine v. Hanlin, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 219.
See also Huff f. McDonald, 22 Ga. 131, 68
Am. Dec. 487; Hudson v. Coe, 79 Me. 83, 8
Atl. 249, 1 Am. St. Rep. 288; Wright v.
Wright, 59 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 176.
Where there are more than two tenants in
common, one cannot recover rents or profits
in an action to account against another ; it
is a case for chancery. Wiswell v. Wilkins,
4 Vt. 137.
Such a statute may include cases of per-
sonal occupancy as well as receipt of rent.
McParland v. Larkin, 155 111. 84, 39 N. E.
609; Outler v. Currier, 54 Me. 81; West v.
Weyer, 46 Ohio St. 66, 18 X. E. 537, 15 Am.
St. Rep. 552; Lancaster v. Flowers, 208 Pa.
St. 199, 57 Atl. 526; Keller f. Lamb, 10
Kulp (Pa.) 246; Hazard i: Albro, 17 E. I.
181, 20 Atl. 834; Knowles v. Harris, 5 R. I.
402, 73 Am. Dec. 77. Proof of a valid con-
tract of rental, fixing rental price, is prima
facie .evidence to charge defendant cotenant
in an action of account with said price.
Tarleton r. Goldthwaite, 23 Ala. 346, 58 Am.
Dec. 296.
If a sealed agreement not in itself creating
the relationship of tenancy in common be-
tween the parties who are not otherwise
tenants in common be the cause of action,
then covenant and not account is the proper
remedy. Patten v. Heustis, 26 N. J. L. 293.
Waste. — A statute for an accounting may
not be applicable in a case of waste between
[in, J, I, a]
cotenants. Cecil r. Clark, 47 W. Va. 402, 35
S. E. 11, 81 Am. St. Rep. 802.
Under Rhode Island Rev. St. 209, § 1, the
remedy of account between tenants in com-
mon extends, in the case of exclusive users of
the property, to fair rental value, irrespect-
ive of profits made or which might have been
made, or of losses suffered in such use dur-
ing the term of exclusive operation. Knowles
f. Harris, 5 R. I. 402, 73 Am. Dee. 77.
Mining. — Where a statute required that an
accounting shall be for " what is justly and
equitably due," damages based on a royalty
for mining were held to be proper. Fulmer's
Appeal, 128 Pa. St. 24, 18 Atl. 493, 15 Am.
St. Rep. 662.
15. Smith V. Smith, 150 N. C. 81, 63 S. E.
177.
16. Huff V. McDonald, 22 Ga. 131, 68 Am.
Dec. 487; Hayden i. Merrill, 44 Vt. 336, 8
Am. Rep. 372; Wheeler v. Home, Willes
208; Gregory v. Connolly, 7 U. C. Q. B.
500.
At common law there is no liability so to
account unless there was an actual appoint-
ment as bailiff or agent; nor is there, at
common law, a lien for moneys so received.
Crow f. Mark, 52 111. 332; Gregg v. Roaring
Springs Land, etc., Co., 97 Mo. App. 44, 70
S. W. 920; Izard v. Bodine, 11 N. J. Eq. 403,
69 Am. Dec. 595 ; Kennedy's Estate, 1 Lack.
Leg. N. (Pa.) 135; Cain v. Cain, 53 S. C.
350, 31 S. E. 278, 69 Am. St. Rep. 863 ; Kalt-
eyer v. Wipff, 92 Tex. 673, 52 S. W. 63;
La Master v. Dickson, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 473,
43 S. W. 911 ; Williamson v. Jones, 43 W. Va.
562, 27 S. E. 411, 64 Am. St. Rep. 891, 38
L. R. A. 694; Gregory r. Connolly, 7 U. C.
Q. B. 500.
17. Connecticut. — Oviatt v. Sage, 7 Conn.
95.
Neiraslca. — Names r. Xames, 48 Nebr. 701,
67 N. W. 751.
New York. — Harris v. Gregg, 17 N. Y.
App. Div. 210, 45 N. Y. Suppl. 364.
North Carolina,. — See Darden v. Cowper,
52 N. C. 210, 75 Am. Dee. 461.
Virginia. — -Moorman r. Smoot, 28 Gratt.
80; Graham r. Pierce, 19 Gratt. 28, 100 Am.
Dec. 658.
West Virginia. — Cecil v. Clarke, 49 W. Va.
459, 39 S. E. 202.
England. — Job v. Potton, L. E. 20 Eq. 84,
44 L. J. Ch. 262, 32 L. T. Rep. N. S. 110, 23
Wkly. Rep. 588.
Mines. — An action of accounting has been
permitted between cotenants where defendant
had worked mines on the common property,
on the theory that such action was not for
use and occupation but rather for deporting
a part of the common property. Abbey «.
Wheeler, 170 N. Y. 122, 62 N. E. 1074.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cye.J 77
property an accounting has been allowed.^' An action to compel an account
of the rents and profits of land or the proceeds of the sale thereof will not lie where
one of the parties has a mere equitable interest, and the other of them has a -legal
title in the land.'' Before an accounting can be had a cotenancy must be shown
to have existed/" and the burden is upon plaintiff, where he seeks an accounting
of rents and profits from his cotenant for use and occupation of the common
property, to show their exclusive possession, or the derivation of some profit by
defendant amounting to more than defendant's share.^' As the issue, in the
absence of statute to the contrary, in an action of accoimt is, in the first instance,
whether there shall be an accounting or not it is immaterial, until after said issue
shall have been determined, whether or not one of the cotenants had made profits
out of the common estate.^^ An action of account has been held not to be main-
tainable for the produce that the occupying cotenant had taken for his own benefit.^'
Contribution has been permitted to be recovered in an ordinary civil action between
tenants in common,^ and by way of set-off or in mitigation of damages. ^^ If
defendant has ousted plaintiff, plaintiff must establish his right at law before
he can recover mesne profits,^" and defendant is not liable for wear and tear arising
from proper use of the property, only for damage arising from negligence or mis-
use; and if liable because of abuse and misuse of the property, then in estimating
the damages the improvements in the nature of general repairs made by defendant
should be taken into consideration.^'
b. Demand as Condition Precedent. A tenant in common is entitled to a
18. Oviatt v. Sage, 7 Conn. 95.
19. Cearnes v. Irving, 31 Vt. 604.
Appointment of coowner as trustee. — The
coowner of a mine may, in a suit to recover
his interest therein and in the ores extracted
therefrom, have defendant declared a trustee
of the legal title for his benefit to the extent
of his interest. Mills v. Hart, 24 Colo. 505,
52 Pac. 680, 65 Am. St. Rep. 241.
20. Palmer v. Eich, [1997] 1 Ch. 134, 66
L. J. Ch. 69, 75 L. T. Eep. N. S. 484, 45
Wkly. Eep. 205 ; In re Jackson, 34 Ch. D. 732,
56 L. J. Ch. 593, 56 L. T. Rep. N. S. 562, 35
Wkly. Eep. 646; Bone v. Pollard, 24 Beav.
283, 53 Eng. Eeprint 367; Harrison v. Bar-
ton, 1 Johns. & H. 287, 7 Jur. N. S. 519, 30
L. J. Ch. 213, 3 L. T. Eep. N. S. 614, 9
Wkly. Eep. 177, 70 Eng. Eeprint 756 ; Robin-
son V. Preston, 4 Jur. N. S. 186, 4 Kay & J.
505, 27 L. J. Ch. 395, 70 Eng. Eeprint
211.
Acts of ownership by the alleged tenants
in common in various parts of the land in-
differently must be shown in order to estab-
lish a tenancy in common by use and enjoy-
ment. Tisdall X,. Parnell, 14 Ir. C. L. 1.
21. Puller V. Sweet, 30 Mich. 237, 18 Am.
Eep. 122; Rose f. Cooley, (X. J. Ch. 1906)
62 Atl. 867; Barrell v. Barrell, 25 N. J. Eq.
173. But see Shepard v. Pettlt, 30 Minn.
119, 14 N. W. 511, holding that in a suit
between tenants in common for the conversion
of logs cut from the common property, there
is no burden on plaintiff to prove that de-
fendant converted more than his share, un-
less otherwise provided by statute. Compare
Barnum v. Landon, 25 Conn. 137, holding
that the allegation, in a suit between coten-
ants for a share of the rent received by one
of them, that defendant has taken more than
his share is unnecessary, because defendant
is liable to account for whatever share of the
rent he may have received.
Minority as sufficient evidence of want of
consent to appropriation of profits see Cutler
V. Currier, 54 Me. 81.
22. Hawley v. Burd, 6 111. App. 454, hold-
ing such testimony inadmissible.
23. Joslyn v. Joslyn, 9 Hun (N. Y.) 388
(where under a statute authorizing an action
of account or assumpsit between cotenants, it
was held that the right of recovery was lim-
ited to a proportionate amount of the net
actual receipts, and did not include what had
been taken from the common property and
applied to the use of the occupying cotenant
therein) ; Dresser v. Dresser, 40 Barb. (N. Y.)
300; Dodson v. Hays, 29 W. Va. 577, 2 S. E.
415.
Expenditures. — Accounting has been held
to be the proper remedy for the recovery of
necessary expenditures for repairs or im-
provements by way of reimbursement from
profits. Backus v. Chapman, 111 Mass. 386;
Carver x.. Miller, 4 Mass. 559. And see infra,
III, J, 1, c.
24. Fowler f. Fowler, 50 Conn. 256; Kites
v. Church, 142 Mass. 586, 8 N. E. 743;
Schneider Granite Co. f. Taylor, 64 Mo. App.
37; Wood v. Merritt, 2 Bosw. (N. Y.)
368.
Contribution by owners of vessel see Arey
V. Hall, 81 Me. 17, 16 Atl. 302, 10 Am. St.
Eep. 232; Andrew i;. New Jersey Steamboat
Co., 11 Hun (N. Y.) 490; Wood f. Merret,
2 Bosw. (N. Y.) 368.
25. Backus t. Chapman, 111 Mass. 386;
Burrell v. Bull, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 15.
26. Izard v. Bodine, 11 N. J. Eq. 403, 69
Am. Dec. 595.
27. Bodkin v. Arnold, 48 W. Va. 108, 35
S. E. 980.
[HI, J, 1, b]
78 [38 Cyc]
TENANCY IN COMMON
demand for an accounting within a reasonable time before an action can be
maintained therefor; ^* on refusal to comply with which accounting wiU lie.^°
c. Crediting Expenditures For Common Benefit. Expenditures made in good
faith imder circumstances justifying them should be credited to the cotenant so
making said expenditures in a suit for an accounting; '° and such expenditures
are a proper subject for accounting,^' and may be availed of by way of recoupment
or set-off. ^^ If they be made for permanent improvements, then it will depend
upon the circumstances of the particular case whether such improvements will
be allowed for to the extent of their full value,^^ or only to the extent of the rents.
28. Barnum v. Landon, 25 Conn. 137 ; Ela
V. Ela, 70 N. H. 163, 47 Atl. 414; West v.
Weyer, 46 Ohio St. 66, 18 N. E. 537, 15 Am.
St. Rep. 552.
29. Johnston v. Price, 172 Pa. St. 427, 33
Atl. 688.
A joint owner in possession is the agent of
the joint coowners, and is accountable to
them for their portion of the rent from the
date when he is notified thus to account.
Moreira c. Schwan, 113 La. 643, 37 So. 542;
Ayotte c. Nadeau, 32 Mont. 498, 81 Pac.
145.
30. Alabama. — Gayle 'C. Johnston, 80 Ala.
395, credit for necessary advances to make a
crop.
District of Columbia. — Alexander r. Doug-
lass, 6 D. C. 247.
//ZiHoi's.— Cheney v. Ricks, 187 111. 171, 58
N. E. 234.
Kentucl-y. — Armstrong v. Bryant, 16 S. W.
463, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 128.
Louisiana. — Sharp v. Zeller, 114 La. 549,
38 So. 449; Moreira f. Schwan, 113 La. 643,
37 So. 542.
M assa-chusetts. — Dewing r. Dewing, 165
Mass. 230, 42 N. E. 1128; Carver v. Miller,
4 Mass. 559.
Michigan. — Boyce v. Boyce, 124 Mich. 696,
83 X. W. 1013; Moreland v. Strong, 115
Mich. 211, 73 N. W. 140, 69 Am. St. Rep. 553.
Minnesota. — Kean v. Connelly, 25 Minn.
222, 33 Am. Rep. 458. But see Walter v.
Greenwood, 29 Minn. 87, 12 N. W. 145, hold-
ing that proof of the moneys due for improve-
ments unaccompanied by proof of the amount
of the increase of income arising from such
improvements is immaterial.
Missouri. — Bates v. Hamilton, 144 Mo. 1,
45 S. W. 641, 66 Am. St. Eep. 407.
Kew Hampshire. — Pickering v. Pickering,
63 N. H. 468, 3 Atl. 744.
Xew Jersey. — Switzer v. Switzer, 57 N. J.
Eq. 421, 41 Atl. 486; Cooper v. Cooper, 9
N. J. Eq. 566.
New Yorfc.— Collins v. Collins, 8 N. Y.
App. Div. 502, 40 N. Y. Suppl. 902 ; Hannan
V. Osborn, 4 Paige 336.
Pennsylvania. — Luck v. Luck, 113 Pa. St.
256, 6 Atl. 142; Dech's Appeal, 57 Pa. St.
467; Anderson v. Greble, 1 Ashm. 136;
Grubb V. Grubb, 30 Leg. Int. 241.
Tennessee. — -Sutton c. Sutton, (Ch. App.
1900) 58 S. W. 891.
Virginia. — Graham v. Pierce, 19 Gratt. 28,
100 Am. Dec. 658 (operating lead mines) ;
Euffners v. Louis, 7 Leigh 720, 30 Am. Dec.
513.
Wisconsin. — Gerndt v. Conradt, 117 Wis.
[Ill, J, 1, b]
15, 93 N. W. 804; Tipping v. Robbins, 71
Wis. 507, 37 N. W. 427.
England. — Job v. Potton, L. R. 20 Eq. 84,
44 L. J. Ch. 262, 32 L. T. Rep. N. S. 110, 23
Wkly. Rep. 588.
Canada. — In re Curry, 25 Ont. App. 267
[aljirming 17 Ont. Pr. 379].
Such credits must ordinarily be based on
actual expenditures, if such expenditures be
less than the value of the increment, in
preference to being based on the fair market
value of the increment or on its reasonable
worth. Contaldi v. Errichetti, 79 Conn. 273,
64 Atl. 211.
In developing a mine expenses properly in-
curred may be allowed despite the inequitable
conduct of the cotenant accounting. Detter-
ing V. Nordstrom, 148 Fed. 81, 78 C. C. A.
157; Job V. Potton, L. R. 20 Eq. 84, 44 L. J.
Ch. 262, 32 L. T. Rep. N. S. 110, 23 Wkly.
Rep. 588. See also McCord v. Oakland Quick-
silver Min. Co., 64 Cal. 134, 27 Pac. 863, 49
Am. Rep. 686, developing a mine and buying
in an outstanding paramount title. But
it has been held that after money has
been paid into cooirt in a suit for an account-
ing, if defendants without the consent of
plaintiffs expend money in developing or
prospecting mining property owned in com-
mon by the parties litigant, then they are
not entitled to contribution therefor out of
the fund in court. Stickley v. Mulrooney, 36
Colo. 242, 87 Pac. 547.
One adversely holding the common prop-
erty until a constructive trust was declared
by the court should have no compensation for
his care of the property. Anderson V: Nor-
throp, 44 Ela. 472, 33 So. 419.
The principle applies to interest on the in-
debtedness of a tenant in common to hia co-
tenant for purchase-price of the land. Volen-
tine V. Johnson, 1 Hill Eq. (S. C.) 49.
31. Carver v. Miller, 4 Mass. 559; Cotton
V. Coit, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 30 S. W. 381.
Where one tenant in common sowed a
piece of land with grain on the common
ground, and while the grain was growing, the
tenants by agreement divided the land held
in common, and the land upon which the
grain was growing was set to the other ten-
ant who harvested the crop, the tenant who
sold the grain had a legal claim for the ex-
pense and it was a proper subject of account-
ing between them. Kidder f. Rixford, 16 Vt
169, 42 Am. Dec. 504.
32. Dewing v. Dewing, 165 Mass. 230;, 42
K. E. 1128; Backus i". Chapman, 111 Mass.
386.
33. TurnbuU v. Foster, 116 Ga. 765, 43
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cye.] 79
profits, and income collected from the common property." Thus it has been held
that where money has been expended in the making of necessary repairs on the
common property which without such repairs was untenantable, and thereby it
became rentable and income-paying, the cotenant claiming for the improvements
is accountable for all the rents and profits, but is permitted to reimburse himself
for said necessary expenditures only to the extent of the rents and profits in his
hands.'^ Generally the occupying cotenant should be allowed for his improve-
ments to the common property to the extent that they enhance the value of the
property, if they are made in good faith and not adversely.^" Rents, profits, and
income received by him should, between the cotenants, be regarded as paid -pro
tanto by the increased value thus imparted, and he should be charged only with such
rents, profits, and income as were due on the property in its unimproved condi-
tion,'' the rents due to the improvements being left to the tenant who made them,^'
he, however, being chargeable with rent of such portion of the common property
as has been rendered productive by the labor of the non-occupying tenant.^" If
the occupying tenant excludes the other under claim of ownership to the whole
he must account for rent received during the period of exclusion in excess of the
enhanced value of the premises due to improvements.*" In a final accounting
between cotenants the party chargeable should be credited, among other credits,
if any, with all payments made to his cotenants as a part of the common fund;
even though at any time he so paid over more than the amount then due, never-
theless he should be properly credited therewith and such payments should be
so pleaded and proved.^' But a tenant in common is not entitled to be reim-
S. E. 42; Holt v. Couch, 125 N. C. 456, 34
S. E. 703, 74 Am. St. Eep. 648. See also
Williams v. Williams, 68 L. J. Ch. 528, 81
L. T. Eep. N. S. 163 ; Kenrick v. Mountsteven,
48 Wkly. Eep. 141.
A purchasei of the interest of one tenant
in common in possession of the land is bound
to account for the income of so much thereof
as was productive at the time of his purchase
and taking possession, although it was ren-
dered productive by the occupying tenant of
whom he purchased. Hancock v. Day,
McMull. Eq. (S. C.) 298.
34. Williams v. Coombs, 88 Me. 183, 33
Atl. 1073.
35. McCaw v. Barker, 115 Ala. 543, 22 So.
131; Williams i'. Coombs, 88 Me. 1'83, 33
Atl. 1073; Cooper v. Cooper, 9 N. J. Eq.
566.
36. Hawaii. — Nahaolelua i". Kaaahu, 10
Hawaii 662.
Iowa. — Van Ormer v. Harley, 102 Iowa
150, 71 N. W. 241.
Kansas. — -Phipps v. Phipps, 47 Kan. 328,
27 Pac. 972.
Kentucky. — Graham v. Graham, 6 T. B.
Mon. 561, 17 Am. Dec. 166; McClanahan v.
Henderson, 2 A. K. Marsh. 388, 12 Am. Dec.
412.
Michigan. — Patrick !:. Kalamazoo Y. M.
C. A., 120 Mich. 185, 79 N". W. 20«.
North Carolina. — Holt v. Couch, 125 N. C.
456, 34 S. E. 703, 74 Am. St. Eep. 648.
West Virginia. — Williamson v. Jones, 43
W. Va. 562, 27 S. E. 411, 64 Am. St. Eep.
891, 38 L. E. A. 694.
Canada. — Eice v. George, 20 Grant Ch.
j;U. C.) 221.
But see Middlebury Electric Co. v. Tupper,
70 Vt. 603, 41 Atl. 582, holding cotenants not
liable to contribute for permanent improve-
ments.
37. Hannah v. Carver, 121 Ind. 278, 23
N. E. 93; Carver v. Fennimore, 116 Ind. 236,
19 N. E. 103; Van Ormer v. Harley, 102
Iowa 150, 71 N. W. 241; Nahaolelua r.
Kaaahu, 10 Hawaii 662; Cain v. Cain, 53
S. C. 350, 31 S. E. 278, 69 Am. St. Eep. 863;
Holt v. Eobertson, McMull. Eq. (S. C.) 475;
Thompson v. Bostick, McMull. Eq. (S. C.)
75;. Hancock f. Day, McMull. Eq. (S. C.) 69,
36 Am. Dec. 293; Volentine v. Johnson, 1
Hill Eq. (S. C.) 49; Williamson v. Jones,
43 W. Va. 562, 27 S. E. 411, 64 Am. St. Eep.
891, 38 L. E. A. 694.
38. Shiels v. Stark, 14 Ga. 429; Eaftery
;;. Monahan, 22 E. I. 558, 48 Atl. 940 ; Annely
r. De Saussure, 26 S. C. 497, 2 S. E. 490, 40
Am. St. Eep. 725; Early v. Friend, 16 Gratt.
(Va.) 21, 78 Am. Dec. 649.
If all the profits are due to the improve-
ments only, made in good faith and not under
an adverse holding, then those not sharing
in the costs thereof are not entitled to any
share of the profits. Nelson v. Clay, 7 J. J.
Marsh. (Ky.) 138, 23 Am. Dec. 387.
39. Volentine v. Johnson, 1 Hill Eq. (S. C.)
49.
40. Eenshaw r. Tullahoma First Nat.
Bank, (Tenn. Ch. App. 1900) 63 S. W. 194.
41. Schettler v. Smith, 34 N. Y. Super. Ct.
17; Kidder v. Eixford, 16 Vt. 169, 42 Am.
Dec. 504.
Where tenants in common consume the
rents and profits of the common property
themselves, what they so received should be
considered on an accounting. Buck v.
Martin, 21 S. C. 590, 53 Am. Eep. 702. See
also Cain l-. Cain, 53 S. C. 350, 31 S. E. 278,
69 Am. St. Eep. 863.
[Ill, J, 1, e]
80 [S8 Cye.J
TENANCY IN COMMON
bursed for expenses incurred where there is no showing that they were for the
common benefit/^ or where they were made after the revocation of authority to
cotenants so to make said expenditures if such revocation be equitably sufficient; ^
or where the expenditures were made during the time of a precedent estate for
the benefit of the precedent tenancy only," and no allowance should be made
for expenditures extraneous to the subject-matter.*^ In those jurisdictions which
permit a judgment in favor of defendant for such amoimt as may be justly due
him, a judgment should be allowed for defendant for the balance due him in an
action of accounting where it appears that the net profits from the common prop-
erty are less than the amount properly expended by him for the common benefit.*^
Infancy may be shown to prove want of consent to appropriations.*'
d. Equitable Accounting. Equity has jurisdiction, under a proper biU setting
out sufficient facts, to require an accounting between cotenants.** But such a bill
must set forth some equity, such as the need for discovery or the absence of remedy
at law or the involvement of some question of account, and the rights of the
complainant in equity must be clear,*' for although some courts seem to hold
broadly that equity has jurisdiction in matters of account between tenants in
common, or that it has concurrent jurisdiction with courts of law in such matters,^*
courts of equity generally require special circumstances in matters of accoimting
between tenants in common before they will act; and where the account is simple
or can be readily determined such account has been held not to be sufficient for
the intervention of chancery; *' and it is generally laid down that equity wUl not,
42. Miner f. Lorman, 70 ilich. 173, 38
N. W. 18; Pickering f. Pickering, 63 X. H.
468, 3 Atl. 744; Hall v. Fisher, 20 Barb.
(X. Y.) 441; Farrand c. Gleason, 56 Vt. 633.
43. Switzer t. Switzer, 57 X. J. Eq. 421,
41 .Atl. 486.
44. Booth t. Booth, 114 Iowa 78, 86 X. W.
51; Zapp V. ililler, 109 X. Y. 51, 15 X. E.
889.
One purchasing the interest of a tenant in
common at a foreclosure sale becomes tenant
in common with the other cotenants, for the
purposes of an accounting between them from
the time of his deed and not from the date
of mortgage; and no charges should be em-
braced for expenditures prior to date of said
time. Davis v. Chapman, 24 Fed. 674.
45. Beezley r. Crossen, 14 Oreg. 473, 13
Pac. 306.
No allowance for payment of taxes on a
void assessment. — See Cole t. Cole, 57 Misc.
(X. Y.) 490, 108 X. Y. Suppl. 124.
46. Dewing c. Dewing, 165 Mass. 230, 42
X. E. 1128; Eaftery f. Monahan, 22 E. I.
558, 48 Atl. 940.
47. Cutler i. Currier, 54 3Ie. 81.
48. HoUahan t. Sowers, 111 111. App. 263;
Whiton V. Spring, 74 X. Y. 169; Dyckman t.
Valiente, 42 X. Y. 549; Sherman c. Ballon, 8
Cow. (X". Y.) 304. See also Butte, etc.,
Consol. Min. Co. r. Montana Ore Purchasing
Co., 25 Mont. 41, 63 Pac. 825, holding that
where a statute conferred equity jurisdiction,
and was subsequently amended so as to con-
fer new rights on another class of cotenants,
and a cotenancy was created after the pas-
sage of the original act, and before said
amendment thereto became operative, such
cotenant was entitled to the benefit of the
original act as the amendment thereto was
only prospective in its operation.
[Ill; J. 1. e]
Filing bill not a ratification of a lease. —
Where one cotenant undertakes to lease the
common property and a bill is subsequently
filed denying the title of the lessor and the
validity of the lease, but nevertheless pray-
ing for discovery and an accounting of
profits received by virtue of one of the terms
of the lease, such action is not in itself a
ratification of the lease. McXeely t. South
Penn Oil Co., 58 W. Va. 438, 52 S. E.
480.
A mortgagee of the share of a tenant in
common may maintain a bill for account-
ing against the mortgagor and his cotenants
therein. Bentley x,. Bates, 4 Jur. 552, 9
L. J. Exch. 30, 4 Y. & C. Exch. 1S2.
49. Moreira c. Schwan, 113 La. 643, 37
So. 542; Blood f. Blood, 110 Mass. 545; Mor-
gan f. Long, 73 Miss. 406, 19 So. 98, 55 Am.
St. Rep. 541; Harrington c. Florence Oil Co.,
178 Pa. St. 444, 35 Atl. 855.
If an accounting be necessary to fix the
interest of a coowner in personal property
that has been converted by his cotenants, an
equitable action may be maintained. Carter
r. Bailey, 64 Me. 458, 18 Am. Rep. 273;
Whiton r. Spring, 74 N. Y. 169; Dyckman v.
Valiente, 42 X". Y. 549; Xewfan f. Newman,
27 Gratt. (Va.) 714; Euffners f. Lewis, 7
Leigh (Va.) 720, 30 Am. Deo. 513.
50. Georgia. — Xeel v. Morris, 73 Ga. 406.
Illinois. — Henson v. Moore, 104 111. 403.
Kew Jersey. — Martin v. Martin, (Ch.
1892) 23 Atl. 822.
New York. — Dyckman v. Valiente, 42 X Y
549.
Pennsylvania. — ^Harrington v. Florence Oil
Co., 178 Pa. St. 444, 35 Atl. 855.
Vermont. — Leach r. Beattie, 33 Vt. 195.
51. California. — Pico v. Columbet, 12 Cal.
414, 73 Am. Dec. 550.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 CycJ 81
in the absence of statute, assume jurisdiction of an accounting unless there are
special circumstances making the action at law for an account an inadequate
remedy.^^ A bill for an account may be sustained without previously recovering
possession; ^ but equity will not, in the absence of statute, entertain a suit for
an accounting of profits by one not in possession until after the determination
of the question of title in a pending suit at law,^ or where the amount claimed
to be due is fixed and certain, or where a valuation is to be made and there is no
further reason for the interposition of equity.^^ There is no statutory equitable
jurisdiction unless the case comes within the statute; thus if a statute gives juris-
diction in certain matters between tenants in common, equity has no jurisdiction
if the parties intended to become tenants in common, but are not actually such
tenants.^"
2, Assumpsit — a. In General. One cotenant under agreement with the
other, express or implied, may recover in assumpsit for services rendered or
expenditures made,^' or for money received for the common property,^* or for
a liquidated amount due under a contract between the parties,^" and if an account
be adjusted or stated, debt or assumpsit lies/" If a cotenant, as cotenant, wrong-
Mmne. — Carter i\ Bailey, 64 Jle. 458, l&
Am. Eep. 273.
Massachusetts. — Blood v. Blood, 110 Mass.
545.
New York. — Dyekman ;;. Valiente, 42
N. Y. 549.
Fermorat— Wiswell v. Wilkins, 4 Vt. 137.
Limitations are the same at law and in
equity in an action of accounting where there
is concurrent jurisdiction at law and in
equity. St. John r. Coates, 63 Hun (jST. Y.)
460, 18 N. Y. Suppl. 419 laffirmed in 140
N. Y. 634, 35 X. E. 891].
52. Merchant's Bank v. Foster, 124 Ala.
696, 27 So. 513; Pegram v. Barker, 115 Ala.
543, 22 So. 131; Pico v. Columbet, 12 Cal.
414, 73 Am. Dec. 550; Carter r. Bailey, 64
Me. 458, 18 Am. Rep. 273; Blood ;;. Blood,
110 Mass. 545.
Moneys received by one cotenant as the
agent of the other for the sale of his interest
to a third party are not held in trust by said
agent so as to entitle the principal to main-
tain a suit in equity for an accounting, the
proper remedy being a suit at law to recover
the amount alleged to be due. Garside v.
Nerval, 1 Alaska 19. Compare Clark v.
Jones, 49 Cal. 618.
53. Johnson v. Burslem, 2 L. J. Ch. 0. S.
168, 26 Rev. Rep. 212.
54. Swearingen v. Barnsdall, 210 Pa. St.
84, 59 Atl. 477.
55. Pegram i: Barker, 115 Ala. 543, 22 So.
131; Martin t. Martin, (N. J. Ch.) 23 Atl.
822.
Where the use and occupancy of the com-
mon property has been under an agreement,
and the only question is as to the extent of
interest in the common property, an action
of assumpsit is not ousted merely by a statu-
tory granting of jurisdiction to a court of
equity in similar cases. Winton Coal Co. v.
Pancoast Coal Co., 170 Pa. St. 437, 33 Atl.
100.
56. Flagg y. Mann, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 467.
Nor where a statute or its intended appli-
cation is ■unconstitutional. — North Pennsyl-
vania Coal Co. v. Snowden, 42 Pa. St. 488,
82 Am. Dec. 530.
[6]
57. Alabama. — Russell v. Russell, 62 Ala.
48; Strother v. Butler, 17 Ala. 733.
Illinois. — Haven v. Mehlgarten, 19 111. 91.
Kentucky. — Alexander v. Ellison, 79 Ky.
148.
Massachusetts. — Gwinneth v. Thompson, 9
Pick. 31, 19 Am. Dec. 350.
Pennsylvania. — Beaty v. Bordwell, 91 Pa.
St. 438.
A sealed agreement to pay a share of the
crops for work and labor thereupon does not
per se create a tenancy in common. Covenant
is the proper remedy on such a cause of
action. Patten v. Heustis, 26 N. J. L. 293.
Woodland or arable land. — The rule has
been held not to extend to woodland or arable
land at common law. Alexander v. Ellison,
79 Ky. 148; Carv«r v. Miller, 4 Mass. 559;
Beaty i: Bordwell, 91 Pa. St. 438; Gregg v.
Patterson, 9 Watts & S. (Pa.) 197; Bowles'
Case, 11 Coke 796, 77 Eng. Reprint 1252.
See also 4 Kent Comm. (13th ed.) 370.
Set-off. — An assumpsit for destruction and
carrying away of timber trees is maintain-
able, but a similar claim cannot be pleaded in
set-off by defendant, as it is not a mutual
debt and demand and tenants in common can-
not join in such an action. Mooers v. Bunker,
29 N. H. 420; Smith v. Woodman, 28 N. h.
520. Taxes constitute an equity of set-off.
Kean v. Connelly, 25 Minn. 222, 33 Am. Rep.
458.
58. Hudson r. Coe, 79 Me. 83, 8 Atl. 249,
1 Am. St. Rep. 288 ; Miller v. Miller, 7 Pick.
(Mass.) 133, 19 Am. Dec. 264 (on sale of
trees) ; Stone v. Aldrich, 43 N. H. 52;
Brinckerhoff v. Wemple, 1 Wend. (X. y.) 470
(damages for land taken by eminent do-
main) .
Even though plaintiff had alienated his in-
terest in the common land after liability
attached, assumpsit might be maintained.
Blake v. Milliken, 14 N. H. 213.
59. Burnham v. Best, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.)
227 ; Kites v. Church, 142 Mass. 586, 8 N. E.
743.
60. Hamilton v. Conine, 28 Md. 635, 92
Am. Dec. 724; Jones v. Harraden, 9 Mass.
540 note; Dyekman v. Valiente, 42 N. Y.
[Ill, J, 2, a]
82 [38 Cyc]
TENANCY IN COMMON
fully exceeds his rights, and assumes an unauthorized control over the share of
the other cotenant, his cotenant may ratify the wrongful act and recover his share
of the proceeds thereof, or he may still claim the interest of a cotenant as against
the wrong-doer or any one holding under him.°^ Where a tenant in common sells
more than his share of the common property with the consent of his cotenant,
an action for money had and received may be maintained against him because
of his implied agency; °^ and where the tort of conversion has been committed
between tenants in common, the damaged party may waive the tort, elect to
ratify the sale or other act of the cotenant, and bring assumpsit."' Each tenant
in common has an equal right to the possession and use of the common property,
and assumpsit cannot be maintained between the cotenants for their respective
shares of interest therein in the absence of statute, unless there has been a sale
or destruction of said property, or sorae act has been committed inconsistent with
the common ownership or amounting to a denial of the right of plaintiff therein; °*
549 ; Jackson I'. Moore, 94 N. Y. App. Div.
504, 87 N. Y. Suppl. 1101. See also Kanstead
f. Eanstead, 74 Md. 378, 22 Atl. 403.
Even though there be statutoiy lelief in
equity and no express promise. Fanning v.
Chadwiek, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 420, 15 Am. Dec.
233.
The burden is on plaintifi to prove the ac-
count stated. Baxter i'. Hozier, Arn. 519,
5 Bing. N. Cas. 288, 8 L. J. C. P. 169, 7
Scott 233, 35 E. C. L. 161.
61. Harris f. Umsted, 79 Ark. 499, 96
S. W. 146; Barry i. Baker, 93 S. W. 1061,
29 Ky. L. Kep. 573.
62. Murley v. Ennis, 2 Colo. 300; Dickin-
son t. Williams, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 258, 59 Am.
Dec. 142; Haven f. Foster, 9 Pick. (Mass.)
112, 19 Am. Dec. 333; Shaw v. Grant, 2 N.
Brunsw. 110. See also Frost %. Disbrow, 12
N. Brunsw. 73.
Against vendee. — It has been held that
such action may be maintained against the
vendee. Stone i. Aldrioh, 43 N. H. 52.
63. Ala.'bama. — Fielder v. Childs, 73 Ala.
567; Cowles f. Garrett, 30 Ala. 341; Tankers-
ley V. Childers, 23 Ala. 781; Smyth t. Tan-
kersley, 20 Ala. 212, 56 Am. Dec. 193.
California. — Williams v. Chadbourne, 6
Cal. 559.
Colorado.— Murley v. Ennis, 2 Colo. 300.
Kentucky. — Taylor v. Perkins, 1 A. K.
Marsh. 253.
J/ome.— Carter v. Bailey, 64 Me. 548, 18
Am. Rep. 273; Moses v. Ross, 41 Me. 360, 66
Am. Dec. 250.
Massachusetts. — Briggs v. Call, 5 Mete.
504; Miller v. Miller, 7 Pick. 133, 19 Am.
Dec 264.
Michigan. — Williams v. Rogers, 110 Mich.
418, 68 N. W. 240; Tuttle v. Campbell, 74
Mich. 652, 42 N. W. 384, 16 Am. St. Rep.
652; Loomis r. O'Neal, 73 Mich. 582, 41
N. W. 701; Fiquet v. Allison, 12 Mich. 328,
86 Am. Dee. 54.
Nelraska. — Perry v. Granger, 21 Nebr.
579, 33 N. W. 261.
'Keiv Hampshire. — White v. Brooks, 43
N. H. 402; Stone v. Aldrich, 43 N. H. 52;
Kenniston v. Ham, 29 N. H. 501; Blake !;.
Milliken, 14 N. H. 213.
A^etu York. — Harris i\ Gregg, 17 N. Y.
App. Div. 210, 45 N. Y. Suppl. 364; Small
r. Robinson, 9 Hun 418.
[Ill, J, 2, a]
Pennsylvania. — -Winton Coal Co. v. Pan-
coast Coal Co., 170 Pa. St. 437, 33 Atl. 110;
Browning v. Cover, 108 Pa. St. 595.
Virginia. — Moorman v. Smoot, 28 Gratt.
80.
Timber. — If no question is made as to the
title of the land, a tenant in common sell-
ing trees therefrom and receiving property
in payment will be liable to his cotenants
in an action for money had and received.
Miller v. Miller, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 133, 19 Am.
Dec. 264; W'hite v. Brooks, 43 N. H. 402;
Blake v. Milliken, 14 N. H. 213; Holt v.
Robertson, McMull. Eq. (S. C.) 475. A
suit for accounting is not the proper method
of ascertaining the damage to the interest
of one cotenant by the wrongful cutting of
the timber on the part of the other, in the
absence of statutes or equitable reason.
U. S. V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 6 Mont. 351,
12 Pac. 769. See also McGahan v. Rondout
Nat. Bank, 156 U. S. 218, 15 S. Ct. 347, 39
U ed. 403.
Tenants in common cannot join against a,
cotenant in actions of assumpsit for value
of timber. Mooers v. Bunker, 29 N. H. 420.
Defenses that might be urged in tort are
available in assumpsit on waiver of tort.
Gilmore v. Wilbur, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 120, 22
Am. Dec. 410.
Defendant cannot be heard to complain of
such waiver as it redounds to his benefit.
Miller v. Miller, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 133, 19
Am. Dec. 264.
64. Arkansas. — Bertrand f. Taylor, 32
Ark. 470.
Louisiana. — Becnel v. Becnel, 23 La. Ann.
150.
Maine. — Richardson i\ Richardson, 72 Me.
403; Gowen v. Shaw, 40 Me. 56.
Michigan. — Wilmarth v. Palmer, 34 Mich.
347.
'New York. — Joslyn r. Joslyn, 9 Hun 388;
McCarthy v. McCarthy, 40 Misc. 180, 81
N. Y. Suppl. 660.
Pennsylvania. — Wells v. Becker, 24 Pa.
Super. Ct. 174.
Wisconsin. — Bulger v. Woods, 3 Pinn. 460.
Canada. — Doyle t\ Taylor, 2 N. Brunsw.
201.
Assumpsit will not lie where question of
title to real estate is involved. Kran v.
Case, 123 111. App. 214.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cye.J 83
nor in the absence of an agreement, express or implied/^ Special assumpsit
for a share of the rents, profits, or income is not maintainable unless the case
is brought fully within the statute both by the pleadings and the evidence,""
and a declaration in assumpsit founded on a statute should be special on the
statute and not merely under the common counts."'
b. For Rents and Profits. Ordinarily the only remedy between cotenants
and those standing in fiduciary relations to them to recover a portion of rents
received by either, or moneys properly expended for the common benefit, is by
a bill in equity or an action of account at law either under the statute of Anne
or some other statutory provision."' Thus it is held that a tenant in common
cannot, independently of statute, and in the absence of an agreement, express
or implied, maintain assumpsit against his cotenant who has received more than
his share of the rents, profits, and income of the estate, the remedy being an
action of account; "" nor ordinarily, in the absence of statute, if the rents and
profits were received at a time when the one receiving them was not asserting
title in himself.'" But such an action is allowed in some jurisdictions, sometimes
being permitted by statute; " and if there is an express or implied agreement by
Money paid by a tenant in common to his
cotenant for ore, under a mistaken idea that
the exclusive title to the land from which
the ore was talien was in him so receiving
said money, is not recoverable in assumpsit,
the proper remedy being account rendered.
Irvine r. Hanlin, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 219.
65. Illinois. — Kran v. Case, 123 111. App.
214.
Indiana. — Harry v. Harry, 127 Ind. 91, 26
N. E. 562.
Maine. — Gowen v. Shaw, 40 Me. 56.
Sew Hampshire. — Webster *. Calef, 47
N. H. 289; Wiggin v. Wiggin, 43 N. H. 561,
80 Am. Dec. 192.
A'eio York. — Central Trust Co. v. New
York Equipment Co., 87 Hun 421, 34 N. Y.
Suppl. 349, pledgee caring for and selling
pledged property.
Texas. — Ring i: Smith, I Tex. App. Civ.
Cas. § 1115.
Virginia. — Ballou v. Ballou, 94 Va. 350,
26 S. E. 840, 64 Am. St. Rep. 733, holding
that assumpsit cannot be maintained by one
tenant against his cotenants for any part
of moneys expended by him for improve-
ments or repairs without their assent or re-
quest.
An offer to buy or sell the common prop-
erty is not sufficient foundation on which to
base an action of assumpsit, between the
tenants in common against the cotenant in
possession. Whitmore v. Alley, 46 Me. 428.
66. Dyer i: Wilbur, 48 Me. 287; Moses i'.
Ross, 41 Me. 360, 66 Am. Dec. 250; Smith
V. Woodman, 28 N. H. 520.
67. Smith v. Woodman, 28 N. H. 520.
68. Whiton v. Spring, 74 N. Y. 169; Sher-
man i\ Ballou, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 304; Denys
V. Shuckburgh, 5 Jur. 21, 4 Y. & C. Exch. 42.
69. Alabama. — Fielder «. Childs, 73 Ala.
567.
Illinois.— Crow v. Mark, 52 111. 332 ; Kran
V. Case, 123 111. App. 214.
Indiana. — McCrum V. McCrum, 36 Ind.
App. 636, 76 N. E. 415.
Kentucky. — Talbott v. Todd, 5 Dana 190.
Maine. — See Magulre v. Pingree, 30 Me.
508.
Michigan. — Wilmarth t\ Palmer, 34 Mich.
347.
Tennessee. — Terrell v. Murray, 2 Yerg.
384.
Texas. — Ring i\ Smith, 1 Tex. App. Civ.
Cas. § 1115; McGrady v. McRae, 1 Tex. App.
Civ. Cas. § 1036.
Vermont. — McCrillis v. Banks, 19 Vt. 442.
England. — Thomas v. Thomas, 5 Exch. 28,
14 Jur. 180, 19 L. J. Exch. 175, 1 L. M. & P.
229.
Canada. — Frost v. Disbrow, 12 N. Brunsw.
73.
The theory of liability in such a case is
not based upon the existence of a promise,
either implied or expressed. Kran v. Case,
123 111. App. 214.
Unless there be an account settled and
balance agreed on it is held that assumpsit
cannot be maintained. Frost v. Disbrow,
12 N. Brunsw. 73. See also infra, note 72.
Where a tenant in common leases his in-
terest and collects rents therefor without
interference with the rights of his cotenants
in the premises assumpsit does not lie.
Seantlin v. Allison, 32 Kan. 376, 4 Pac. 618.
70. Ryason i\ Dunten, 164 Ind. 85, 73
N. E. 74.
71. Alabama. — Price v. Pickett, 21 Ala.
741.
Maine.— Hudson r. Coe, 79 Me. 83, 8 Atl.
249, 1 Am. St. Rep. 288 ; Richardson v. Rich-
ardson, 72 Me. 403 ; Carter v. Bailey, 64 Me.
458, 18 Am. Rep. 273; Cutler v. Currier, 54
Me. 81 (holding that assumpsit may be
maintained even though defendant did not
occupy the whole of the common estate) ;
Dyer v. Wilbur, 48 Me. 287; Moses v. Ross,
41 Me. 360, 66 Am. Dec. 250; Gowen r.
Shaw, 40 Me. 56 ; Buck i. Spofford, 31 Me. 34.
Massachusetts. — Dickinson r. Williams, 11
Cush. 258, 59 Am. Dec. 142. See Thayer v.
Brewer, 15 Pick. 217; Brigham v. Eveleth,
9 Mass. 538.
Missouri. — Rogers v. Penniston, 16 Mo.
432.
'New Hampshire. — Gage v. Gage, 66 N. H.
282, 29 Atl. 543, 28 L. R. A. 829.
"New York. — Wright v. Wright, 59 How.
[HI, J, 2, b]
84 [38 Cye.;/
TENANCY IN COMMON
an occupying cotenant to pay rent, assumpsit will lie for the recovery thereof.'^
The burden is on plaintiff to show actual receipt by defendant of more than his
share/' and in order to support such an action it must appear that defendant
has received more than his share, not merely of a single article of produce but
of the entire profits of the estate, after deducting all reasonable charges; and that
the balance is due to plaintiff, and not to other cotenants."
3. Tort Actions — a. In General ; Trover, Actions in tort may be main-
tained between cotenants where plaintiff has been ousted or kept out of possession
of the common property, or where there has been some denial or impairment
of his right in the common property, or where it is so provided by statute.'^ As
Pr. 176; Cocliran v. Carrington, 25 Wend.
409.
Pennsylvania. — Steele v. ilcGill, 172 Pa.
St. 100, 33 Atl. 146; Winton Coal Co. v.
Pancoast Coal Co., 170 Pa. St. 437, 33 Atl.
110; BorreU v. Borrell, 33 Pa. St. 492; Gillis
f. McKinney, 6 Watts & S. 78.
Texas. — McGrady v. McRae, 1 Tex. App.
Civ. Cas. § 1036.
A disseizee of lands cannot bring assump-
sit against the disseizor, his cotenant, for
.rents and profits received after disseizin.
Richardson t. Richardson, 72 Me. 403.
If title to the land is in issue assumpsit
vein not lie. Miller k. Miller, 7 Pick. (Mass.)
133, 19 Am. Dec. 264. But see Hudson i-.
Coe, 79 Me. 83, 8 Atl. 249, 1 Am. St. Rep.
288, holding that such action will not be
defeated on account of a dispute raised by
defendant concerning the title, provided
plaintiff was owner in the estate, and was
not disseized at the date when the income
was received in money by defendant.
It may be for a share of the tazes paid
upon the common property. Kites v. Church,
142 Mass. 586, 8 N. E. 743.
Assumpsit lies after the termination of the
cotenancy against one who during said re-
lationship received more than his share of
the income, although he denied said relation-
ship. Blake r. Milliken, 14 N. H. 213.
Adjustment for payment of moneys be-
tween cotenants under the mistaken belief
that the title of the common property was in
one of the cotenants is by way of accounting
and not of assumpsit. Irvine v. Hanlin, 10
Serg. & R. (Pa.) 219.
72. Chapman v. Duffy, 20 Colo. 471, 79
Pac. 746 (oral agreement) ; Blanton v. Van-
zant, 2 Swan (Tenn.) 276.
Agreement between heirs, pending sale. —
Where a statute provides for assumpsit for
use and occupation against the cotenants,
the heirs at law to whom property descends
may, prior to its sale as by the testator
directed, contract with each other for use
and occupation, or maintain action against
each other therefor. In re Journey, 7 Del.
Ch. 1, 44 Atl. 795; Richardson v. Richard-
son, 72 Me. 403.
The adverse holding of land by a cotenant
does not render him liable to his cotenants
for the use and occupation of the land, be-
cause where the holding is adverse there is
no relation of landlord and tenant. Wil-
marth v. Palmer, 34 Mich. 347.
Occupants of land obtaining title to an un-
divided share during their occupancy and
[III, J, 2, b]
continuing the same were not chargeable
by their cotenants for use and occupation
after acquiring said title. Bigelow i: Bige-
low, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 98, 77 N. Y. Suppl.
716.
73. Gowen i-. Shaw, 40 Me. 56.
Recovery is limited to the proportionate
share of the net amount actually received;
none can be had for what the occupying co-
tenant takes from the land for his own use,
and there is no presumption that the amount
of rent received by a tenant in common for
the rental of a portion of the common prop-
erty equals the full annual rental value of
the whole of said property. Joslyn v. Jos-
lyn, 9 Hun (N. Y.) 388.
74. Hudson v. Coe, 79 Me. 83, 8 Atl. 249,
1 Am. St. Rep. 288; Shepard i\ Richards, 2
Gray (Mass.) 424, 61 Am. Dec. 473; Winton
Coal Co. i-. Pancoast Coal Co., 170 Pa. St.
437, 33 Atl. 110; Southwest Coal, etc., Co.
V. Warden, 1 Pa. Cas. 102, 1 Atl. 421. Com-
pare Walker v. Hiunbert, 55 Pa. St. 407.
75. Alabama. — Steiner r. Tranum, 98 Ala.
315, 13 So. 365 ; Sullivan v. Lawyer, 72 Ala.
74; Russell v. Russell, 62 Ala. 48; Arthur v.
Gayle, 38 Ala. 259; Smythe v. Tankersley,
20 Ala. 212, 56 Am. Dec. 193; Perminter v.
Kelly, 18 Ala. 716, 54 Am. Dec. 177.
Arkansas. — Trapnall v. Hill, 31 Ark. 345.
California. — Carpenter -v. Mitchell, 29 Cal.
330.
Connecticut. — See Oviatt v. Sage, 7 Conn.
95.
Geor^to.— King v. Neel, 98 Ga. 438, 25
S. E. 513, 58 Am. St. Rep. 311; Starnes v.
Quin, 6 Ga. 84.
Illinois. — Benjamin v. Stremple, 13 111.
466.
Iowa. — Conover t\ Earl, 26 Iowa 167.
Kentucky. — Bell v. Layman, 1 T. B. Mon.
39, 15 Am. Dec. 83.
Maine. — Davis r. Poland, 102 Me. 192, 66
Atl. 380, 10 L. R. A. N. S. 212; Strickland
V. Parker, 54 Me. 263; Symonds i\ Harris,
51 Me. 14, 81 Am. Dec. 553; Pillsbury v.
Moore, 44 Me. 154, 69 Am. Dec. 91; Wheeler
V. Wheeler, 33 Me. 347 ; Maddox v. Goddard,
15 Me. 218, 33 Am. Dec. 604; Herrin v.
Eaton, 13 Me. 193, 29 Am. Dee. 499.
Maryland. — Winner r. Penniman, 35 Md.
163, 6 Am. Rep. 385; Dailey v. Grimes, 27
Md. 440.
Massachusetts. — Needham v. Hill, 127
Mass. 133; Goell r. Morse, 126 Mass. 480;
Delaney v. Root, 99 Mass. 546, 97 Am. Dec.
52; Hunting v. Russell, 2 Cush. 145: Weld
V. Oliver, 21 Pick. 559.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc.j
each tenant in common is entitled to the possession, use, and enjoyment of the
common property, the general rule is that a tenant in common cannot maintain
Michigan. — Williams v. Rogers, 110 Mich.
418, 68 N. W. 240; Clow v. Plummer, 85
Mich. 550, 48 N. W. 795 ; McClure i.. Thorpe.
68 Mich. 33, 35 K W. 829; Grove v. Wise,
39 Mich. 161; Bray v. Bray, 30 Mich. 479;
Eipley v. Da-vis, 15 Mich. 75, 9 Am. Dec.
262; Webb v. Mann, 3 Mich. 139.
Minnesota. — Shepard v. Pettit, 30 Minn.
119, 14 N. W. 511; Person v. Wilson, 25
Minn. 189 ; Gould v. Eagle Creek School Sub-
Dist. No. 3, 8 Minn. 382.
Mississippi. — Corbin v. Cannon, 31 Miss.
570; Harmon v. James, 7 Sm. & M. Ill, 45
Am. Dec. 296.
Missouri. — Falconer v. Roberts, 88 Mo.
574.
Montana. — Butte, etc., & B. Consol. Min.
Co. I'. Montana Ore Purchasing Co., 25 Mont.
41, 63 Pac. 825.
ycftrosfed.— Reed v. McRill, 41 Nebr. 206,
59 N. W. 775; Perry i,-. Granger, 21 Nebr.
679, 33 N. W. 261.
'New Hampshire. — Pickering v: Moore, 67
N. H. 533, 32 Atl. 828, 68 Am. St. Rep. 695,
31 L. R. A. 698; Redington v. Chase, 44
N. H. 36, 82 Am. Dec. 189; White v. Brooks,
43 N. H. 402; Great Falls Co. v. Worster,
15 N. H. 412; Blake v. Milliken, 14 N. H.
213; Chesley v. Thompson, 3 N. H. 9, 14 Am.
Dec. 324.
New Jersey. — Boston v. Morris, 25 N. J. L.
173.
Neio Yorfc.— Stall r. Wilbur, 77 N. Y.
158; Lobdell v. Stowell, 51 N. Y. 70; Dyck-
man v. Valiente, 42 N. Y. 549; Peterson v.
De Baun, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 259, 55 N. Y.
Suppl. 249; LeBarron v. Babcock, 46 Hun
598 [affirmed in 122 N. Y. 153, 25 N. E. 253,
19 Am. St. Rep. 488, 9 L. R. A. 025] ; Moore
V. Erie R. Co., 7 Lans. 39; Channon f. Lusk,
2 Lans. 211; Green v. Edick, 66 Barb. 564
[reversed on other grounds in 56 N. Y. 613] ;
Benedict r. Howard, 31 Barb. 569; Flint v.
Frantzman, 1 Silv. Sup. 547, 5 N. Y. Suppl.
623; Adams v. Loomis, 7 N. Y. St. 592; Pat-
ten V. Neal, 62 How. Pr. 158; White v. Os-
born, 21 Wend. 72; Farr v. Smith, 9 Wend.
338, 24 Am. Dec. 162 ; Hyde v. Stone, 9 Cow.
230, 18 Am. Dec. 601. Compare Osborn v.
Schenck, 83 N. Y. 201.
North Carolina. — Waller v. Bowling, 108
N. C. 289, 12 S. B. 990, 12 L. R. A. 261;
Johnson v. Swain, 44 N. C. 335 ; Pitt v. Pet-
way, 34 N. C. 69; Guyther r. Pettijohn, 28
N. C. 388, 45 Am. Dec. 499.
Ohio. — Morgan v. Hudnell, 52 Ohio St.
652, 40 N. E. 716, 49 Am. St. Rep. 741, 27
L. R. A. 862.
Oklahoma. — Logan ■;;. Oklahoma Mill Co.,
14 Okla. 402, 79 Pac. 103.
Oregon. — Rosenau v. Syring, 25 Oreg. 386,
35 Pac. 844; Yamhill Bridge Co. v. Newly,
1 Oreg. 173.
Pennsylvania. — Bush r. Gamble, 127 Pa.
St. 43, 17 Atl. 865; Given v. Kelly, 85 Pa.
St. 309; Coursin's Appeal, 79 Pa. St. 220;
Reep V. Wagner, 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 268,
throwing furniture of a tenant in common
off of the common realty which he had been
occupying by the consent of his cotenanta,
and which he had temporarily left without
any intention of abandoning it.
South Carolina. — Jefcoat r. Knotts, 13
Rich. 50.
South Dahota. — Grigshy v. Day, 9 S. D.
585, 70 N. W. 881; Wood v. Steinau, 9 S. D.
110, 68 N. W. 160.
Tennessee. — Rains v. McNairy, 4 Humphr.
356, 40 Am. Dec. 651.
Texas. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Prather,
75 Tex. 53, 12 S. W. 969 ; Roberts v. Roberts,
(Civ. App. 1907) 99 S. W. 886.
Vermont. — Lewis v. Clark, 59 Vt. 363, 8
AtL 158; Aiken v. Smith, 21 Vt. 172. See
also Bates v. Marsh, 33 Vt. 122; Barton v.
Burton, 27 Vt. 93.
Virginia. — Lowe v. Miller, 3 Gratt. 205,
46 Am. Dec. 188, the appropriation of a
chattel destroyed by use to the exclusive use
of one of the cotenants therein.
Wisconsin, — Sullivan v. Sherry, 111 Wis.
476, 87 N. W. 471, 87 Am. St. Rep. 890
(holding that where the licensee of a tenant
in common, without consent of his cotenant,
takes timber from the common property,
appropriating it exclusively to his own use,
this amounts to ouster and wrongful con-
version of the property of the non-consenting
cotenant, and the licensee is liable in tres-
pass or trover) ; Ashland Lodge No. 63,
I. 0. O. F. r. Williams, 100 Wis. 223, 75
N. W. 954, 69 Am. St. Rep. 912; Wood v.
Noack, 84 Wis. 398, 54 N. W. 785; Earll v.
Stumpf, 56 Wis. 50, 13 N. W. 701; Warren
V. AUer, 1 Pinn. 479, 44 Am. Dec. 406.
Canada. — Mcintosh v. Port Huron Petri-
fied Brick Co., 27 Ont. App. 262 (where the
removal of a brick-making machine from the
jurisdiction by tenants in common was held
sufficient ground for an action for conver-
sion of the interest of a cotenant therein) ;
McLellan r. McDougall, 28 Nova Scotia 237;
Brady i: Arnold, 19 U. C. C. P. 42; Rathwell
l\ Rathwell, 26 U. C. Q. B. 179; Culver v.
Macklem, 11 U. C. Q. B. 513.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 109 et seq.
Forcible entry and detainer. — An action
has been maintained between tenants in com-
mon for forcible entry and detainer. Pres-
brey v. Presbrey, 13 Allen (Mass.) 281.
But such 'action is not maintainable before
severance or partition. Lick v. O'Donnell,
3 Cal. 59, 58 Am. Dec. 383. And in unlaw-
ful detainer there can be no decree or judg-
ment of restitution and possession as against
a cotenant in the absence of evidence that
defendant denies or refuses any of plaintilT's
rights. Lee Chuck r. Quan Wo Chong, 91
Cal. 593, 28 Pac. 45. See, generally. Forcible
Entry and Detainer, 19 Cyc. 1141.
No demand is necessary before bringing
action in a suit where one is guilty of con-
version. Williams v. Rogers, 110 Mich. 418,
68 N. W. 240. Thus in the absence of statu-
tory requirements no demand need be alleged
[III, J, 3, a]
86 [38 Cyc]
TENANCY IN COMMON
a tort action against his cotenants in the absence of statute or agreement to the
contrary, or of some act of destruction of the common property, or acts equivalent
thereto, or a hostile appropriation of the common property by or through cotenants
less than the whole number thereof, so as to exclude, destroy, or ignore the interests
of their fellows therein; '" and actions in tort, such as trover, are generally not
against a tort-feasing cotenant in an action
against him by his cotenants for cutting
timber on the common property. Mooers v.
Bunker, 29 N. H. 420.
Changing the form of the common prop-
erty in order to put it to its general and
profitable application is not such destruc-
tion thereof as to create a right of action
between tenants in common. Fennings v.
Grenville, 1 Taunt. 241, 9 Rev. Rep. 760.
But see Redington a Chase, 44 N. H. 36, 82
Am. Dec. 189.
Use on sale of hay as ground for trover
see Lewis v. Clark, 59 Vt. 363, 8 Atl. 158.
A railroad company entering upon and ap-
propriating land by consent of one cotenant
therein only is liable to the other cotenant
for trespass. Rush v. Burlington, etc., R.
Co., 57 Iowa 201, 10 N. W. 628.
76. Alabama. — Smith i-. Rice, 56 Ala. 417;
Perminter v. Kelly, 18 Ala. 716, 54 Am. Dec.
177. See also Moore v. Walker, 124 Ala.
199, 26 So. 984, holding that trover cannot be
maintained by a tenant in common against
his cotenants for a thing still in his posses-
sion.
A.rhansas. — Bertrand v. Taylor, 32 Ark.
470.
California: — Lee Chuck v. Quan Wo Chong,
91 Cal. 593, 28 Pac. 45; Williams v. Chad-
bourne, 6 Cal. 559.
Colorado. — Omaha, etc., Smelting, etc., Co.
V. Tabor, 13 Colo. 41, 21 Pac. 925, 16 Am. St.
Rep. 185, 5 L. R. A. 236.
Connecticut. — Newell v. Woodruff, 30
Conn. 492; Webb v. Danforth, 1 Day 301.
Georgia. — Glynn County Bd. of Education
V. Day, 128 Ga. 156, 57 S. E. 359; Hall ;;.
Page, 4 6a. 428, 48 Am. Dec. 235.
Illinois. — Murray v. Haverty, 70 111. 318;
Swartwout u. Evan a, 37 111. 442; Benjamin
V. Stremple, 13 111. 466.
Iowa. — See Maxwell v. Wilson, 76 Iowa
31, 39 N. W. 926.
Kansas. — Smith-McCord Dry-Goods Co. v.
Burke, 63 Kan. 740, 66 Pac. 1036, holding
replevin not maintainable against cotenant or
the joint agent of the tenants in common.
Kentucky. — Roberta v. McGraw, 11 Bush
26; Fightmaster v. Beasly, 7 J. -J. Marsh.
410; Bell r. Layman, 1 T. B. Mon. 39, 15
Am. Dec. 83; Chinn i\ Respass, 1 T. B. Mon.
25; Lewis i". Night, 3 Litt. 223; Carlyle v.
Patterson, 3 Bibb 93.
Louisiana. — A. Wilbert's Sons Lumber,
etc., Co. r. Patureau, 44 La. Ann. 355, 10
So. 782.
Maine. — Estey v. Boardman, 61 Me. 595;
Kilgore v. Wood, 56 Me. 150,-96 Am. Dec.
404; Boobier f. Boobier, 39 Me. 406; Wheeler
v. Wheeler, 33 Me. 347; Herrin v. Eaton, 13
Me. 193, 29 Am. Dec. 499.
Massachusetts. — Blood f. Blood, 110 Mass.
545 ; Brightman v. Eddy, 97 Mass. 478 ; Bry.
[Ill, J, 3, a]
ant V. Clifford, 13 Mete. 138; Reed f. How-
ard, 2 Mete. 36; Weld v. Oliver, 21 Pick.
559; Cutting V. Rockwood, 2 Pick. 443.
Michigan. — McElroy v. O'Callaghan, 112
Mich. 124, 70 N. W. 441 ; Clow f. Plummer,
85 Mich. 550, 48 N. W. 795.
Minnesota. — Kean v. Connelly, 25 Minn.
222, 33 Am. Rep. 458; Strong v. Colter, 13
Minn. 82.
Mississippi. — Hinds v. Terry, Walk. 80.
Missouri. — Painter v. Painter, (App. 1910)
124 S. W. 561 ; Kelley v. Vandiver, 75 Mo.
App. 435; Sheffler v. Mudd, 71 Mo. App. 78;
Sharp V. Benoist, 7 Mo. App. 534.
Hew Hampshire. — Johnson v. Conant, 64
N. H. 109, 7 Atl. 116 (holding that the en-
largement of a ledge for the improvement of
a flume, thus putting the ledge to its only
beneficial use, is not such a disregard of a
cotenant's rights as to entitle him to main-
tain trespass against his cotenants so im-
proving the property) ; Ballou v. Hale, 47
N. H. 347, 93 Am. Deo. 438; Carr t\ Dodge,
40 N. H. 403 (holding that there is no action
of trover between cotenants in crops until
after a separation or severance by the par-
ties, such conversion as goes to the destruc-
tion of the crops or the entire exclusion of
the cotenant from the enjoyment of his right
and interest therein).
Hevj Jersey. — Boston v. Morris, 25 N. J. L.
173; Boston Franklinite Co. v. Condit, 19
N. J. Eq. 394.
'New York. — Gates v. Bowers, 169 N. Y.
14, 61 N. E. 993, 88 Am. St. Rep. 530;
Gilman v. Gilman, 111 N. Y. 265, 18 N. E.
849; Hudson v. Swan, 83 N. Y. 552; Osborn
V. Schenck, 83 N. Y. 201; Dyckman v. Val-
iente, 42 N. Y. 549 ; Hayes r. Kerr, 40 N. Y.
App. Div. 348, 57 N. Y. Suppl. 1114; Hayes
V. Kerr, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 348, 57 N. Y.
Suppl. 1114; Harris v. Gregg, 17 N. Y. App.
Div. 210, 45 N. Y. Suppl. 364; Brown v.
Burnap, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 129, 45 N. Y.
Suppl. 149; Barrowcliffe v. Cummins, 66
Hun 1, 20 N. Y. Suppl. 787; Benedict r.
Howard, 31 Barb. 569; Tinney v. Stebbins,
28 Barb. 290; Tyler v. Taylor, 8 Barb. 585;
Stafford i,-. Azbell, 8 Misc. 316, 28 N. Y.
Suppl. 733 [affirmed in 155 N. Y. 669, 49
N. E. 1104] ; Hudson v. Swan, 7 Abb. N. Cas.
324 [reversed on other grounds in 83 N. Y.
552]; Van Doren v. Baity, 11 Hun 239;
White V. Osborn, 21 Wend. 72; Farr ».
Smith, 9 Wend. 338, 24 Am. Dec. 162; Mum-
ford i\ McKay, 8 Wend. 442, 24 Am. Dec.
34; Gilbert v. Diokerson, 7 Wend. 449, 22
Am. Dec. 592; Hyde r. Stone, 7 Wend. 354,
22 Am. Dec. 582; Sheldon v. Skinner, 4
Wend. 525, 21 Am. Dec. 161; Mersereau v.
Norton, 15 Johns. 179; Wilson v. Reed, 3
Johns. 175 ; St. John v. Standring, 2 Johns.
468. Compare Knope v. Nunn, 151 N. Y.
506, 45 N. E. 940, 56 Am. St. Rep. 642.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[88 Cye.J 87
maintainable between tenants in common, whilst the common property is still
in possession of either of them by virtue of his cotenancy therein." But this
rule does not apply where the right exists in the respective tenants in common
to take or demand their respective shares of the common personal property because
it is alike in quality and value and readily divisible by tale, measurement, or
weight, and one tenant in common therein takes his share thereof without his
cotenant's consent or makes due demand for his respective share therein and is
refused; or where a division of the common personal property has been made
according to the respective interests of the cotenants therein, and one cotenant
takes all of the common personal property thus divided and refuses to deliver to
his cotenant his share, if the existence of all the conditions requisite to such a
Horth Carolina. — Thompson i". Silver-
thorne, 142 N. C. 12, 54 S. E. 782, 115 Am.
St. Rep. 727; Shearin v. Riggsbee, 97 N. C.
216, 1 S. B. 770; Grim r. Wicker, 80 N. C.
343; Cain v. Wright, 50 N. C. 282, 72 Am.
Dec. 551; Pitt v. Petway, 34 N. C. 69 (hold-
ing that, although selling and taking out of
the state may be equivalent to " destruc-
tion," nevertheless selling and keeping in the
state is not equivalent to destruction) ; Bon-
ner V. Latham, 23 N. C. 271; Lucas v. Was-
son, 14 N. C. 398, 24 Am. Dec. 266; Camp-
bell V. Campbell, 6 N. C. 65.
Oregon. — Yamhill Bridge Co. v. Newby, 1
Oreg. 173.
Pennsylvania. — Heller v. Hufsmith, 102
Pa. St. 533; Walworth v. Abel, 52 Pa. St.
370; Blewett v. Coleman, 40 Pa. St. 45; Ben-
net V. Bullock, 35 Pa. St. 364; Keisel ».
Earnest, 21 Pa. St. 90; Agnew v. Johnson,
17 Pa. St. 373, 55 Am. Dec. 565.
South Carolina. — Gibson t". Vaughn, 2
Bailey 389, 23 Am. Dec. 143 (holding that
no action of trespass lies between cotenants
for the mere removal of a fixture from the
common land) ; Martin v. Quattlebam, 3 Mc-
Cord 205.
South Dakota. — Grigsby v. Day, 9 S. D.
685, 70 N. W. 881.
Tennessee. — Cowan v. Buyers, Cooke 53, 5
Am. Dec. 668. See also Rains v. McNairy,
4 HUmphr. 356, 40 Am. Dec. 651.
Texas. — Eastham v. Sims, 11 Tex. Civ.
App. 133, 32 S. W. 359 ; Worsham v. Vignal,
5 Tex. Civ. App. 471, 24 S. W. 562.
Vermont. — Deavitt v. Ring, 73 Vt. 298,
50 Atl. 1066; Kane v. Garfield, 60 Vt. 79,
13 Atl. 800; Lewis v. Clark, 59 Vt. 363, 8
Atl. 158; Spaulding v. Orcutt, 56 Vt. 218;
Turner v. Waldo, 40 Vt. 51; Wait ». Rich-
ardson, 33 Vt. 190, 78 Am. Dec. 622; Barton
V. Burton, 27 Vt. 93; White v. Morton, 22
Vt. 15, 52 Am. Dec. 75; Bradley i: Arnold,
16 Vt. 382; Sanborn v. Morrill, 15 Vt. 700,
40 Am. Dec. 701; Hurd v. Darling, 14 Vt.
214; Owen v. Foster, 13 Vt. 263;. Booth v.
Adams, 11 Vt. 156, 34 Am. Deo. 680; Ladd
V. Hill, 4 Vt. 164.
Wisconsin. — Earll v. Stumpf, 56 Wis. 50,
13 N. W. 701; McKinley f. Weber, 37 Wis.
279; Bulger v. Woods, 3 Pinn. 460; Warren
V. AUer, 1 Pinn. 479, 44 Am. Dec. 406.
United States. — Bohlen v. Arthurs, 115
V. S. 482, 6 S. Ct. 114, 29 L. ed. 454; Gold-
smith V. Smith, 21 Fed. 611.
England. — Jacobs v. Seward, L. R. 5 H. L.
464, 41 L. J. C. P. 221, 27 L. T. Rep. N. S.
185 [affirming 18 Wkly. Rep. 953]; Job v.
Potton, L. R. 20 Eq. 84, 44 L. J. Ch. 262, 32
L. T. Rep. N. S. 110, 23 WIdy. Rep. 588; Bar-
ton f. Williams, 5 B. & Aid. 395, 7 E. C. L.
219, 106 Eng. Reprint 1235; Heath v. Hub-
bard, 4 East 110, 4 Esp. 205, 102 Eng. Re-
print 771; Farrar v. Beswick, 5 L. J. Exch.
225, 1 M. & W. 682, Tyrw. & G. 1053; Hay-
wood V. Daviea, 1 Salk. 4, 91 Eng. Reprint 4;
Martyn v. Knowllys, 8 T. R. 145, 101 Eng.
Reprint 1313.
Canada. — Wiggins v. White, 2 N. Brunsw.
97; Brittain v. Parker, 12 Nova Scotia 589;
Elliott V. Smith, 3 Nova Scotia 338; Brady
V. Arnold, 19 U. C. C. P. 42; Rathwell v.
Rathwell, 26 U. C. Q. B. 179; Culver c.
Macklem, U U. C. Q. B. 513; Petrie v. Tay-
lor, 3 U. C. Q. B. 457. Compare Freeman v.
Morton, 3 Nova Scotia 340.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 100 et seq.
Sale of common property. — One tenant in
common of personal property is not liable in
an action of trover at the suit of his co-
tenant for selling the common property.
Olin V. Martell, 83 Vt. 130, 74 Atl. 1060.
77. Alaiama. — Moore v. Walker, 124 Ala.
199, 26 So. 984; Perminter i,-. Kelly, 18 Ala.
716, 54 Am. Dec. 177.
Connecticut. — Harris v. Ansonia, 73 Conn.
359, 47 Atl. 672.
Kansas. — Smith-McCord Dry-Goods Co. v.
Burke, 63 Kan. 740, 66 Pac. 1036.
Maine. — Carter v. Bailey, 64 Me. 458, 18
Am. Rep. 273; Estey r. Boardman, 61 Me.
595 ; Dain v. Cowing, 22 Me. 347, 39 Am. Dec.
585.
Massachusetts. — Weld v. Oliver, 21 Pick.
559.
Michigan. — Parke v. Nixon, 141 Mich. 267,
104 N. W. 597. See also Clow v. Plummer,
85 Mich. 550, 48 N. W. 795 ; Aldine Mfg. Co.
V. Barnard, 84 Mich. 632, 48 N. W. 280.
Minnesota. — Strong v. Colter, 13 Minn. 82.
New Jersey. — Roston v. Morris, 25 N. J. L.
173.
New York. — Osborn i: Schenck, 83 N. Y.
201 ; Rodermund c. Clark, 46 N. Y. 354 ; Gil-
bert V. Dickerson, 7 Wend. 449, 22 Am. Dec.
592; Hyde v. Stone, 9 Cow. 230, 18' Am. Deo.
501 ; Wilson v. Reed, 3 Johns. 175.
North Carolina. — Shearin v. Riffgsbee, 97
N. C. 216, 1 S. E. 770.
[Ill, J, 3, a]
88 [38 Cye.J
TENANCY IN COMMON
right of division be shown; '^ and after severance and retention of all of the
subject-matter thereof by one of the parties, trover may be maintained against
him if he wrongfully withholds the share of the demandant, because his
possession is merely that of bailee.'" Even though trees cut by one cotenant
of land without the consent of the others become personal property on being so
severed, they nevertheless remain the property of the cotenants ; and one of them
converting the logs is liable to his cotenants for the conversion, as in the case
of other personal property.*" No action of trover can be maintained for the
selling of personal property owned in common, either against its vendor or vendee,
where the vendor was a tenant in common therein duly authorized to sell,*^ and
an action is not maintainable between tenants in common to recover an interest
in an article manufactured from part of the materials or property that had been
owned in common by plaintiff and defendant, and converted by the latter, where
the character or identity of the original article has been lost.'^
b. For Crops and Timber. The general rule is that one tenant in common
cannot maintain trespass or trover against his cotenants in crops, until after a
separation or severance thereof or untU after such a conversion thereof as goes to
their destruction, or the exclusion of the complainant from the enjoyment of his
right and interest therein.*^ The application of the rule, however, has not been
uniform; the several cases taking different views in relation to acts in the prem-
ises, and some of them decided directly under statutes, and others ruled by the
special circumstances of the particular cases, have allowed trover or trespass to
Pennsylvania. — Keisel v. Earnest, 21 Pa.
St. 90.
Vermont. — Spaulding v. Orcutt, 56 Vt.
218.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 65 et seg.
Where the bailee of hypothecated stock be-
came a tenant therein before suit, an action
by a cotenant therein in replevin could not
be maintained against him. Baxrowcliffe v.
Oummins, 66 Hun (N. Y.) 1, 20 N. Y. Suppl.
787.
78. California. — Adams v. Thornton, 5 Cal.
App. 455, 90 Pac. 713.
Maine. — Weeks r. Hackett, 104 Me. 264,
71 Atl. 858, 129 Am. St. Rep. 390, 19 L. E. A.
N. S. 1201.
Michigan. — Loomis v. O'Neal, 73 Mich.
582, 41 N. W. 701.
New Hawpshire. — ■ Pickering v. Moore, 67
N. H. 533, 32 Atl. 828', 68 Am. St. Rep. 695,
31 L. E. A. 698.
New Yorfc.— Stall f. Wilbur, 77 N. Y. 158;
Channon v. Lusk, 2 Lans. 211; Fobea v. Shat-
tuck, 22 Barb. 568; Lobdell v. Stowell, 37
How. Pr. 88 [affirmed in 51 N". Y. 70]. See
also McCarthy v. McCarthy, 40 Misc. 180, 81
N. Y. Suppl. 660.
Utah. — Manti City S'av. Bank v. Peterson,
33 Utah 209, 93 Pac. 566, 126 Am. St. Eep.
817.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 701 et seq.
Wool from a whole flock, not shown to be
of one grade, is not property such as is read-
ily divisible in portions absolutely alike in
quality and value, and its retention therefore
by one or two joint owners of it does not
necessarily constitute a conversion. Dear v.
Eeed, 37 Hun (N. Y.) 594.
Under a statute providing that cotenants
[III, J, 3, a]
may maintain actions against each other for
their respective shares of easily divisible
property after a demand in writing, demand
and refusal is suificient for the bringing of
an action, without the destruction of the
common property or a conversion thereof to
defendant's own use. Wood v. Noack, 84
Wis. 398, 54 N. W. 785.
79. Piquet v. Allison, 12 Mich. 328, 86
Am. Dec. 64; Lobdell v. Stowell, 51 N. Y.
70; Seldon v. Hickock, 2 Cai. (N. Y.) 166.
80. Shepard r. Pettit, 30 Minn. 119, 14
N. W. 511; Hinson v. Hinson, 120 N. C. 400,
27 S. E. 80; Walker f. Humbert, 55 Pa. St.
407; Brittain v. Parker, 12 Nova Scotia 589.
81. Hewlett v. Owens, 51 Cal. 570.
83. Redington i: Chase, 44 N. H. 36, 82
Am. Dec. 189; Andrew v. New Jersey Steam-
boat Co., 11 Hun (N. Y.) 490.
83. New Hampshire. — Carr v. Dodge, 40
N. H. 403.
New Jersey. — Boston v. Morris, 25 N. J. L.
173.
North Carolina. — Shearin v. Eiggsbee, 97
N. C. 216, 1 S. E. 770.
Pennsylvania. — Keisel v. Earnest, 21 Pa.
St. 90.
Vermont. — Deavitt v. Ring, 73 Vt. 298, 50
Atl. 1066.
Canada. — -Brady v. Arnold, 19 U. C. C P
42; Eathwell v. Eathwell, 26 U. C. Q. B.
179; Wemp v. Mormon, 2 U. C. Q. B. 146.
Grass growing on the land when severed by
one tenant is not governed by the same rule
as other crops, it not being the product of
his labor, and the severance from the soil
gives him no title to the hay on which he
may recover in trover against a cotenant.
Le Barren v. Babcock, 46 Hun (N. Y.) 598
[affirmed in 122 N. Y. 153, 25 N. E. 253, 19
Am. St. Rep. 488, 9 L. R. A. 625].
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 89
be brought.^ The respective shares of grain, where they can be easily deter-
mined by weight or measure, may be severed, taken, and sold by the respective
owners thereof; but if a tenant in common takes all of the common property and
deprives his cotenants of its use or benefit, or a stranger so takes the common
property or negligently destroys it, it amounts to conversion, and trover will
lie,^^ either as against a cotenant or a purchaser from the cotenant; ^° and under
extraordinary circumstances an injunction may lie.'^ The complaining cotenant
may, however, waive the tort and bring assumpsit.^^ Where a tenant in common,
after a division of a crop of fruit, carried away the entire crop and refused to
divide it with his cotenants, replevin is maintainable.*"
e. Waste. Acts by less than all of the cotenants that go to the destruction
or to the permanent injury of the property constitute waste, °° for which they
84. Alabama. — Sullivan v. Lawler, 72 Ala.
74.
Massachusetts. — Delaney v. Root, 99 Mass.
546, 97 Am. Dee. 52.
Nebraska.— 'Reed v. McEill, 41 N"ebr. 206,
59 N. W. 775.
New Hampshire. — Ballou v. Hale, 47 N. H.
347, 93 Am. Dec. 438.
New York. — Le Barren r. Babeock, 46 Hun
598 [affirmed in 122 N. Y. 153, 25 N. E.
253, 19 Am. St. Eep. 488, 9 L. E. A. 625];
Channon v. Lusk, 2 Lans. 211; Lobdell v,
Stowell, 37 How. Pr. 88 [affirmed in 51 N. Y.
70].
Vermont. — Lewis v. Clark, 59 Vt. 363, 8
Atl. 158.
Canada. — McLellan v. McDougall, 28 Nova
Scotia 237; Brady v. Arnold, 19 U. C. C. P.
42; Culver r. Macklem, 11 U. C. Q. B. 513.
So where timber is unlawfully cut and re-
moved. — Clow r. Plummer, 85 Mich. 550, 48
N. W. 795. See also Trout v. Kennedy, 47
Pa. St. 387; Wilson v. Reed, 3 Johns. (N. Y.)
175. The liability of a tenant in common of
land, valuable for its timber, who cuts the
timber, believing he was the owner of all of it,
is for th« value of the share of the other ten-
ant of the timber in the tree at the time it
was cut, with interest. Paepcke-Leicht Lum-
ber Co. V. Collins, 85 Ark. 414, 108 S. W. 511.
For merely reaping and harvesting, tres-
pass or trover cannot be brought. Jacobs v.
Seward, L. K. 5 H. L. 464, 41 L. J. C. P. 221,
27 L. T. Eep. N. S. 185 [affirming 18 Wkly.
Eep. 953] ; Brady v. Arnold, 19 U. C. C. P.
42; Culver v. Macklem, 11 U. C. Q. B. 613.
Animals damage feasant. — A tenant in
common has been permitted to maintain an
action of case against his cotenants for al-
lowing his animals to run at large and dam-
age crops. McGehee v. Peterson, 57 Ala. 333.
8.5. Arthur v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 61
Iowa 648, 17 N. W. 24; Hall v. Pillsbury, 43
Minn. 33, 44 N. W. 673, 19 Am. St. Rep.
209, 7 L. R. A. 529 ; Harris v. Gregg, 17 N. Y.
App. Div. 210, 45 N. Y. Suppl. 364; Channon
V. Lusk, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 211; Nowlen v.
Colt, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 461, 41 Am. Dec. 756;
Adams v. Meyers, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 62, 1 Sawy.
306.
If grain be delivered at the storehouse of
a stranger, merely for the purpose of deliver-
ing it and not for the purpose of its storage
with other grain, then such storage without
the knowledge or consent of the owner so
delivering it does not make him a tenant in,
common in the whole mass of grain after its
confusion; and he may sue after demand and
refusal, for its restoration to him or for its
conversion. Morgan V. Gregg, 46 Barb.
(N. Y.) 183.
Refusal to sever. — A cotenant in a crop may
be entitled to severance, and a refusal to
sever may give a good cause of action.
Piquet V. Allison, 12 Mich. 328, 86 Am. Dec. 54.
86. Brown v. Wellington, 106 Mass. 318, 8
Am. Rep. 330; Logan v. Oklahoma Mill Co.,
14 Okla. 402, 79 Pac. 103.
87. Bates v. Martin, 12 Grant Ch. (U. C.)
490. See, generally, infra, III, J, 4, b.
88. Loomis f. O'Neal, 73 Mich. 582, 41
N. W. 701. And see, generally, supra, III,
J, 2, a.
89. Adams r. Thornton, 5 Cal. App. 455,
90 Pac. 713; Hall v. Pillsbury, 43 Minn. 33,
44 N. W. 673, 19 Am. St. Rep. 209, 7 L. R. A.
529; Nowlen v. Colt, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 461, 41
Am. Dec. 756; Adams v. Meyers, 1 Fed. Cas.
No. 62, 1 Sawy. 306.
90. Nevels v. Kentucky Lumber Co., 108
Ky. 550, 56 S. W. 969, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 247,
94 Am. St. Rep. 388, 4'9 L. R. A. 416 ; Shep-
ard V. Pettit, 30 Minn. 119, 14 N. W. 511;
Dodd V. Watson, 57 N. C. 48, 72 Am. Dec.
677.
Mining. — An action for waste or in the
nature of waste may be maintainable for the
penetration and opening of the soil, although
it is not waste to dig in mines or pits al-
ready opened, the produce of which have be-
come part of the profit of the land. Ayotte
1-. Nadeau, 32 Mont. 498, 81 Pac. 145; Cole-
man's Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 252; Heil -v. Strong,
44 Pa. St. 264; Williamson v. Jones, 43
W. Va. 562, 27 S. E. 411, 64 Am. St. Rep.
891, 38 L. R. A. 694; Tipping v. Robbins, 71
Wis. 507, 37 N. W. 427.
Extraction of coal from land without con-
sent of the other cotenants as waste see Cecil
V. Clark, 44 W. Va. 659, 30 S. E. 216; Job
f. Potton, L. R. 20 Eq. 84, 44 L. J. Ch. 262, 32
L. T. Eep. N. S. 110, 23 Wkly. Rep. 588. But
the mere working of, or licensing the right
to, work a coal mine is not waste. Job v.
Potton, supra.
The excavation and removal of rock from
the common property may constitute waste.
Childs r. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 117 Mo.
414, 23 S. W. 373; Cosgriff v. Dewey, 21 N. Y.
App. Div. 129, 47 N. Y. Suppl. 255 [affirmed
[III, J, 3, e]
90 [38 Cye.]
TENANCY IN COMMON
may be sued in an action on the case or a statutory action of waste," in which,
if the statute allows, double or threefold damages may be recovered. °^ If a tenant
in common has become liable to his cotenants for damages for waste, they may
waive the tort and require an accoimting at law or in equity. °^ A statute, per-
in 164 N. Y. 1, 58 N. E. 1, 79 Am. St. Rep.
620] , Smith v. Sliarpe, 44 N. G. 91, 57 Am.
Dec. 574.
Boring for petroleum oil and taking it from
the land as waste see Williamson r. Jones,
43 W. Va. 562, 27 S. E. 411, 64 Am. St. Rep.
891, 38 L. R. A. 694; McDodrill f. Pardee,
etc., Lumber Co., 40 W. Va. 564, 21 S. E.
878.
Mill fixtures. — Damaging or taking away,
except for the common benefit, saws, water
wheels, and other fixtures in a mill owned
in common is in the nature of waste. Linton
V. Wilson, 3 N. Brunsw. 223. But the taking
of fixtures and implements of a mill out of
use for want of repairs, and their temporary
use by one cotenant and the destruction of
some rotten timber belonging thereto, by
him, is not destructive waste. Dodd v. Wat-
son, 57 X. C. 48, 72 Am. Dec. 577.
Cutting down and clearing woodland to the
injury of a cotenant therein is waste (Novels
I'. Kentucky Lumber Co., 108 Ky. 550, 56
S. W. 969, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 247, 94 Am. St.
Rep. 388, 49 L. R. A. 416; Elwell v. Burn-
side, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 447; Johnson r. John-
son, 2 Hill Eq. {S. C.) 277, 29 Am. Dec.
72), especially where one tenant in common
so committing waste claims the whole of the
land adversely to his cotenants therein
(Dodge f. Davis, 85 Iowa 77, 52 N. W. 2).
Clearing of all the arable land owned in
common and wearing it out by a succession
of crops and not leaving sufficient timber to
repair fences are not such injuries as the law
will remedy by an action on the case in the
nature of waste, but that the injured coten-
ant must seek his remedy either by an action
of account or a bill in equity for an account-
ing. Darden z. Cowper, 52 X. C. 210, 75 Am.
Dec. 461.
Removal of tort-feasor's property. — Unless
all of the cotenants concur in waste, a non-
concurring cotenant will not be restrained
from removing the tort-feasor's property from
the land. Durham, etc., R. Co. v. Wawn, 3
Beav. 119, 4 Jur. 704, 43 Eng. Ch. 119, 49
Eng. Reprint 47.
91. Georpia.— Shiels v. Stark, 14 Ga. 429.
Maine. — Hubbard x. Hubbard, 15 Me. 198,
plaintiff held entitled to recover without
proving who the other cotenants were. See
also Moody v. Moody, 15 ile. 205, holding
that it is no defense to an action to prevent
the commission of waste and to recover dam-
ages by an heir against his coheirs that the
whole of the common property will be re-
quired to satisfy the claims of the creditors
of the intestate thereof.
Minnesota. — Booth r. Sherwood, 12 Minn.
426, holding that ordinarily trespass does not
lie for misfeasance on the part of a coten-
ant for injuries to the common property, but
an action on the case may be had.
j\>iy York. — Hoolihan v. Hoolihan, 193
[III, J, 3, c]
N. Y. 197, 85 N. E. 1103; Cosgriff v. Dewey,
21 N. Y. App. Div. 129, 47 K. Y. Suppl. 255
[affirmed in 164 N. Y. 1, 58 N. E. 1,
79 Am. St. Rep. 620] ; Elwell v. Burnside, 44
Barb. 447.
Xorth Carolina. — Hinson i-. Hinson, 120
N. C. 400, 27 S. E. 80; Smith v. Sharpe, 44
N. C. 91, 57 Am. Dec. 574.
South Carolina. — Holt v. Robertson, Mc-
Mull. Eq. 475. See Thompson v. Bostick,
McMull. Eq. 75.
Texas. — ^Camoron v. Thurmond, 56 Tex. 22.
Virginia. — Newman v. Newman, 27 Gratt.
714; Graham i: Pierce, 19 Gratt. 28, 100 Am.
Dec. 658.
West Virginia. — Hall v. Clark, 47 W. Va.
402, 35 S. E. 11; Williamson v. Jones, 43
W. Va. 562, 27 S. E. 411, 64 Am. St. Rep.
891, 38 L. R. A. 694; McDodrill c. Pardee,
etc.. Lumber Co., 40 W. Va. 564, 21 S. E.
878.
Canada. — Freeman v. Morton, 3 Nova
Scotia 340.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 69.
A writ of estrepement by one tenant in
common against another for the prevention
of the cutting and the removal of timber from
the common property may be opened and de-
fendant allowed to remove the timber under
proper security. Hensel v. Wright, 10 Pa.
Co. Ct. 416.
Pajonent to one cotenant for waste com-
mitted is a good defense to an action by the
other tenants in common for such waste.
Grossman i: Lauber, 29 Ind. 618.
An entry, claiming title, is prima facie
evidence of a cotenancy for the purposes of an
action for damages for cutting timber on the
land. Blake v. Milliken, 14 N. H. 213.
92. Maine. — Mills v. Richardson, 44 Me.
79; Dwinell v. Larrabee, 38 Me. 464.
Massachusetts. — Jenkins v. Wood, 145
Mass. 494, 14 N. E. 512, limiting, however,
the operation of the statute to cases of known
and recognized tenancies in common.
Michigan. — Clow v. Plummer, 85 Mich.
550, 48 N. W. 795.
Xew York. — Hoolihan v. Hoolihan, 119
N. Y. App. Div. 925, 104 N. Y. Suppl. 551.
Pennsylvania. — Bush v. Gamble, 127 Pa
St. 43, 17 Atl. 865; Wheeler v. Carpenter,
107 Pa. St. 271.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tenancy in Com-
mon," §§ 68, 69.
But see McCord v. Oakland Quicksilver
Min. Co., 64 Cal. 134, 27 Pac. 863, 49 Am.
Rep. 686.
Limitations. — If such statute provides for
the recovery of treble damages an action
thereunder is not necessarily within a statute
limiting actions for penalties to one year.
Adams r. Palmer, 6 Gray (Mass.) 338.
93. Darden v. Cooper, 52 N. C. 210, 75 Am
Dec. 461; Cecil v. Clark, 44 W. Va. 659, 30
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 91
mitting suit between cotenants for waste and fixing the measure of damages,
authorizes an action for waste committed during the cotenancy, even though the
tenancy in common has terminated before the institution of the suit."* If some
of the cotenants joining in a suit for the cutting of timber are estopped from
recovering the full penalty which they might have recovered but for said estoppel,
then a verdict for less than the full penalty is proper, since the right of action
being joint, the assessment of damages must be accordingly."'^ The ordinary rule
of valuation in an accounting between tenants in common as to the removal of
timber by some of them in the absence of statute or agreement to the contrary
is the value of the timber while growing."" In an action in the nature of waste
occasioned by abuse and misuse of property by a cotenant, and his failure to make
tenantable repairs, such improvements as defendant has made in the nature of
general repairs should be considered in estimating the amount of damages."'
d. Ejectment — (i) In General. One tenant in common may maintain
ejectment against a cotenant."' But such action cannot be maintained between
them merely because one of them is occupying more than what would be his
share of the common property on a division or partition thereof."" There must
S. E. 216; MoGahan r. Eondout Nat. Bank,
156 U. S. 218, 15 S. Ct. 347, 39 L. ed. 403;
Brittain v. Parker, 12 Nova Scotia 589. See
also Goodwyn v. Spray, Dick. 667, 21 Eng.
Reprint 431.
Mining. — Account will also apply to the
mining of lands or the operating of oil wells
and the selling of the produce thereof by a
tenant in common without the consent of
the cotenants therein, or after they have re-
fused to join him as well as to other cases
of waste ; as the action is not one for the re-
covery for use and occupation but rather for
a part of the estate that has been taken and
carried away. Childs v. Kansas City, etc.,
E. Co., 117 Mo. 414, 23 S. W. 373; Switzer f.
Switzer, 57 N. J. Eq. 421, 41 Atl. 486;
Abbey v. Wheeler, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 451,
69 N. Y. Suppl. 43'2 [reversed on other
grounds in 170 N. Y. 122, 62 N. E. 1074];
Cosgriff V. Dewey, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 129,
47 N. Y. Suppl. 255 [affirmed in 164 N. Y.
1, 58 N. E. 1, 79 Am. St. Rep. 620] ; McCabe
V. McCabe, 18 Hun (N. Y.) 153; Irvine v.
Hanlin, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 219; Graham
V. Pierce, 19 Gratt. (Va.) 28, 100 Am. Dec.
658; McNeely v. South Penn Oil Co., 58
W. Va. 438, 52 S. E. 480; Cecil V. Clarke,
49 W. Va. 459, 39 S. E. 202; Curtis c. Cole-
man, 22 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 561. The mort-
gagee of one cotenant's share in a mine
may maintain a bill for an accounting against
his mortgagor and the other cotenants
therein. Bentley v. Bates, 9 L. J. Exch. 30,
4 Jur. 552, 4 Y. & C. 182. Taking possession
of the common property under a claim to the
whole thereof under an execution sale, and
converting the products thereof, is sufficient
ground for an accounting to a prior mort-
gagee of the remaining cotenant. McGahan
V. Rondout Nat. Bank, 156 U. S. 218, 15
S. Ct. 347, 39 L. ed. 403.
A just proportion of royalty received on a
lease of the common property executed by
one cotenant for the purposes of mining and
the removal of coal is a proper measure of
damages for such waste. Cecil v. Clark, 44
W. Va. 659, 30 S. E. 216.
94. Hoolihan v. Hoolihan, 119 N. Y. App.
Div. 925, 104 N. Y. Suppl. 551, holding that
a statute creating an action of waste between
cotenants and permitting treble damages or
partition authorizes such action for waste
committed during the cotenancy, even after
the extinguishment of plaintiff's interest in
the land.
95. Haley v. Taylor, 77 Miss. 867, 28 So.
752, 78 Am. St. Rep. 549.
96. Dodge v. Davis, 85 Iowa 77, 52 N. W.
2. See also Clow v. Plummer, 85 Mich. 550,
48 N. W. 795; Walling v. Burroughs, 43
N. C. 60.
97. Bodkin v. Arnold, 48 W. Va. 108, 35
S. E. 980.
98. Ricks V. Pope, 129 N. C. 52, 39 S. E.
638.
One tenant in common having enfeoffed his
interest to his cotenant may be ejected by
the latter. Heatherley v. Weston, 2 Wils.
C. P. 232, 95 Eng. Reprint 783.
Ejectment may be maintained against a
creditor of a cotenant who has levied upon
more than the share of his debtor. Chapman
v. Gray, 15 Mass. 439.
That plaintiff can on partition obtain
satisfaction of bis interests from the re-
mainder of the estate belonging to the other
heirs is no defense in such action. Mahoney
f. Middleton, 41 Cal. 41; Petit v. Flint, etc.,
R. Co., 114 Mich. 362, 72 N. W. 238.
An equity arising from the purchase of an
outstanding interest by a tenant in com-
mon cannot be enforced in ejectment. Retan
■V. Sherwood, 120 Mich. 496, 79 N. W.
692.
One of several coparceners may bring eject-
ment on her separate demise. Jackson v.
Sample, 1 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 231.
Plaintiff cotenant unable to recover be-
cause of lack of suitable evidence see
Llewellyn r. Llewellyn, 201 Mo. 303, 100 S. W.
40; Goldsmith r. Smith, 21 Fed. 611.
99. Lick V. O'Donnell, 3 Cal. 59, 58 Am.
Dec. 383; Daniel v. Daniel, 102 Ga. 181, 23
S. E. 167; Moreira v. Schwan, 113 La. 643,
S7 So. 542.
[Ill, J, 3, d, (i)]
92 [38 Cye.]
TENANCY IN COMMON
be evidence of an ouster, or eviction, or of some act equivalent thereto, to support
the action,^ and recovery may be had only on proof of actual ouster, or on evidence
from which the jury can infer an actual ouster.^ Moreover, to maintain the action,
1. California. — Lee Chuck v. Quan Wo
Chong, 91 Cal. 593, 28 Pac. 45; Owen v.
Morton, 24 Cal. 373.
Colorado. — See Mills v. Hart, 24 Colo. 505,
52 Pae. 680, 65 Am. St. Rep. 241.
Connecticut. — Norris v. Sullivan, 47 Conn.
474; Newell v. Woodruflf, 30 Conn. 492;
Clark i: Vaughan, 3 Conn. 191.
Florida. — Gale v. Hines, 17 Fla. 773.
Georgia. — McCrary c. Glover, 100 Ga. 90,
26 S. E. 102; Lawton r. Adams, 29 Ga. 273,
74 Am. Dec. 59.
Illinois. — Graham v. Ford, 125 111. App.
578.
Indiana. — Vance r. Schroyer, 77 Ind. 501.
Iowa. — Stern v. Selleck, 136 Iowa 291,
111 N. W. 451.
Kentucky. — Chiles i: Conley, 9 Dana 385.
Louisiana.— Moreira v. Sehwan, 113 La.
643, 37 So. 542.
Maine. — Porter v. Hooper, 13 Me. 25, 29
Am. Dec. 480; Cutts v. King, 5 Me. 482;
Williams v. Gray, 3 Me. 207, 14 Am. Dec.
234.
Massachusetts, — King v. Dickerman, 11
Gray 480; Dewey v. Brown, 2 Pick. 387.
Michigan. — Gower v. Quinlan, 40 Mich.
572.
Missouri. — Llewellyn v. Llewellyn, 201 Mo.
303, 100 S. W. 40; Jordon v. Surghnor, 107
Mo. 520, 17 S. W. 1009.
Nevada. — Bullion Min. Co. v. Croesus
Gold, etc., Min. Co., 2 Nev. 168, 90 Am. Dec.
526.
New rorfc.— Gilman c. Gilman, 111 N. Y.
265, 18 N. E. 849; Peterson v. De Baun, 36
N. Y. App. Div. 259, 55 N. Y. Suppl. 249;
Edwards v. Bishop, 4 N. Y. 61 ; Earnshaw
V. Myers, 49 Hun 608, 1 N. Y. Suppl. 901;
Arnot V. Beadle, Lalor 181.
North Carolina. — Jones r. Cohen, 82 N. C.
75; Halford v. Tetherow, 47 N. C. 393.
Oftio.— White v. Sayre, 2 Ohio 110.
South Carolina. — Jones v. Massey, 14
S. C. 292 ; Jones v. Massey, 9 S. C. 376 ;
Volentine r. Johnson, 1 Hill Eq. 49.
Vermont. — Avery v. Hall, 50 Vt. 11; John-
son V. Tilden, 5 Vt. 426 ; Warren v. Henshaw,
2 Aik. 141. See House v. Fuller, 13 Vt. 165,
37 Am. Dec. 580, where rule was applied
to the case of a disseizor who subsequently
purchased the interest of one of the tenants
in common.
Washington. — ^Mabie v. Whittaker, 10
Wash. 656, 39 Pac. 172.
United States.— Cluj v. Field, 115 XJ. S.
260, 6 S. Ct. 36, 29 L. ed. 375; Barnitz v.
Casey, 7 Cranch 456, 3 L. ed. 403.
Canada. — ^Van Velsor v. Hughson, 9 Ont.
App. 390, 45 U. C. Q. B. 252.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 102.
Such as total denial of plaintifi's right of
possession. Falconer v. Roberts, 88 Mo. 574;
Jones V. De Lassus, 84 Mo. 541.
[Ill, J, 3, d, (i)]
In ejectment, if cotenancy is denied by
plaintiff, there is no necessity for any
stronger proof of ouster than against any
other party. Peterson v. Laik, 24 Mo. 541,
69 Am. Dec. 441.
After ratification of a sale of land the
ratifying cotenant is estopped -from main-
taining ejectment against his cotenant's
grantee. Nalle c. Thompson, 173 Mo. 595,
73 S. W. 599.
The possession of a mortgagee cotenant will
be considered prima facie to be by virtue of
the cotenancy and not under the mortgage.
Mellon V. Reed, 114 Pa. St. 647, 8 Atl. 227.
One claiming under a cotenant by virtue
of the cotenancy cannot set up an adverse
title without any other change in the title
after partition. Jackson i-". Creal, 13 Johns.
(N. Y.) 116.
Cotenancy must be alleged and proved be-
fore a denial of rights or acts amounting to
an ouster can be required of plaintiff. Sherin
■v. Larson, 28 Minn. 523, 11 N. w. 70.
2. Alabama. — Foster v. Foster, 2 Stew.
356; Jones v. Perkins, 1 Stew. 512.
Arkansas. — Trapnall v. Hill, 31 Ark. 345.
Connecticut. — Norris v. Sullivan, 47 Conn.
474.
Georgia. — Lawton ;;. Adams, 29 Ga. 273,
74 Am. Dec. 59.
Indiana. — Frakes v. Elliott, 102 Ind. 47,
1 N. E. 195; Vance v. Schroyer, 77 Ind. 501.
Maryland. — Hammond f. Morrison, 33 Md.
95.
Mississippi. — Corbin v. Cannon, 31 Miss.
570; Harmon v. James, 7 Sm. & M. Ill, 45
Am. Dec. 296.
Missouri. — .Childs r. Kansas City, etc., R.
Co., 117 Mo. 414, 23 S. W. 373; Falconer v.
Roberts, 88 Mo. 574.
New Jersey. — Den -f. Bordine, 20 N. J. L.
394.
New York. — North Greig Church v. John-
son, 66 Barb. 119; Clason v. Rankin, 1 Duer
337; Whiteman v. Hyland, 16 N. Y. Suppl. 8.
North Carolina. — Johnson v, Swain, 44
N. C. 335.
Ohio. — Penrod l'. Danner, 19 Ohio 218.
Vermont. — Carpenter i: Thayer, 15 Vt.
552 ; Johnson r. Tilden, 5 Vt. 426.
Virginia. — Taylor v. Hill, 10 Leigh 457.
Washington. — Mabie v. Whittaker, 10
Wash. 656, 39 Pac. 172.
United States. — Barnitz v. Casey, 7 Cranch
456, 3 L. ed. 403; Goldsmith v. Smith, 21
Fed. 611.
England. — Peaceable v. Read, I East 569,
102 Eng. Reprint 220.
See 46 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tenancy in Com-
mon," §102.
Acts of ouster to support action see
Cameron v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 60 Minn.
100, 61 N. W. 814 (the wrongful retention
of exclusive possession after a demand from
one tenant in common of the other that the
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 93
defendant cotenant must be actually in possession.' Adverse possession by one
tenant in common against his cotenants for the statutory period will bar his right
to recover possession.''
(ii) TiTh'E TO Support Action; Capacity to Sue. In ejectment
between cotenants plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title, ^ the
burden being upon him to show his own right and title, and also to rebut prima
facie evidence of title in defendant, if there be any." A cotenant in possession,
holding and claiming the common property as his sole property adversely to the
rights of his cotenants therein for a sufficient period for said adverse claim to
ripen into a title, has a sufficient title to enable him to subsequently maintain
an action in his own name for the recovery of the possession of said property.'
A valid agreement among cotenants or by their authority as to occupying portions
of the common property in severalty is binding until rescinded, and possession
may be recovered against a cotenant by ejectment.*
latter purchase and pay for the interest of
said demandant, and refusal of the tenant
in common in possession so to do) ; North
Greig OhuTch v. Johnson, 66 Barb. (N. Y.)
119 (entering upon the common property
under claimi of exclusive ownership, locking
the door of a building thereon thus excluding
the cotenants, and keeping possession) ; Watts
V. Owens, 62 Wis. 512, 22 N. W. 720 (enter-
ing upon land under a void deed and setting
up adverse possession as against a cotenant
therein ) .
A finding of demand and refusal to be let
into possession does not of itself amount to
the finding of an ouster. Carpentier v. Men-
denhall, 28 Cal. 484, 87 Am. Dec. 135.
3. Mahoney v. Middleton, 41 Cal. 41 ; Car-
Eentier v. Mendenhall, 28 Cal. 484, 87 Am.
"ec. 135 ; Owen v. Morton, 24 Cal. 373 ; Col-
lier ■;;. Oorbett, 15 Cal. 183; Llewellyn V.
Llewellyn, 201 Mo. 303, 100 S. W. 40; Earn-
shaw V. Myers, 1 N. Y. Suppl. 901; Wether-
ington V. Williams, 134 N". C. 276, 46 S. E.
728
4. Illinois.— Lavelle v. Strobel, 89 111. 370.
Indiana. — Doe r. McCleary, 2 Ind. 405.
New York. — Fosgate v. Herkimer Mfg.,
etc., Co., 12 Barb. 352 [affirming 9 Barb.
287] ; Jackson f. Brink, 5 Cow. 483.
North Carolina. — ^Mott v. Carolina Land,
etc., Co., 146 N. C. 525, 60 S. E. 423; Lenoir
V. Valley Eiver Min. Co., 106 N. C. 473, 11
S. E. 516; Gaylord v. Kespass, 92 N. C. 553.
Pennsylvania. — Eider v. Maul, 46 Pa. St.
3?6.
Tennessee. — Marr v. Gilliam, 1 Coldw. 488.
The defense that no actual ouster has been
shown is only available to a cotenant. Arnot
v. Beadle, Lalor (N. Y.) 181.
5. California. — Owen v. Morton, 24 Cal.
373.
Illinois. — Eischer v. Eslaman, 68 111. 78.
!S"oMsos.— Horner v. Ellis, 75 Kan. 675, 90
Pac. 275, 121 Am. St. Eep. 446.
Missouri. — Primm v. Walker, 38 Mo. 94.
North Carolina. — Den v. Cartwright, 15
N. C. 487.
Texas. — Waggoner v. Snody, (1905) 85
S. W. 1134; Davidson v. Wallingford, 88
Tex. 619, 32 S. W. 1030.
One claiming by adverse possession has the
burden of proving such claim. Inglis v.
Webb, 117 Ala. 387, 23 So. 125.
In a joint and several suit by tenants in
common those showing sufficient title may
recover, although others failing to show
sufficient title do not recover. Greenfield v.
Mclntyre, 112 Ga. 691, 38 S. E. 44. But if
a joint action is brought for the recovery
of land and one of plaintiffs fails to show
title or right of entry and possession, plain-
tiffs cannot recover. De Vaughn v. McLeroy,
82 Ga. 687, 10 S. E. 211.
An agreement that a third person should
have a portion of the profits arising from
the sale of certain lands was held to give
no sufficient rights to the lands to maintain
ejectment, but the third person had only an
interest in the proceeds after sale. Seit-
zinger v. Eidgway, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 472.
A defendant without title cannot object in
an action of trespass to try title to said
action by one showing title to an undivided
interest. Gray v. Kauffman, 82 Tex. 65, 17
S. W. 513.
Where two only, of a number of executors,
deeded certain property to a legatee under a
power in the will to the executors to deed
such property to said legatee, it was never-
theless held that irrespective of the deed
such legatee was entitled to bring an action
for possession against one holding adversely.
Hall V. Haywood, 77 Tex. 4, 13 S. W. 612.
An undivided interest in a partition wall
is not sufficient foundation for maintaining
an ejectment suit against one who placed a
building on the half of the land adjoining
that of plaintiff on which the wall stood
before its destruction. Duncan t\ Rodecker,
90 Wis. 1, 62 N. W. 533; Stevens r. Buggies,
23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,408, 5 Mason 221.
6. Davidson v. Wallingford, 88 Tex. 619,
32 S. W. 1030.
7. Kentucky. — Eussell v. Mark, 3 Mete.
37.
Michigan. — La Fountain v. Dee, 110 Mich.
347, 68 N. W. 220; Highstone r. Burdette,
54 Mich. 329, 20 N. W. 64.
Missouri. — Comstock v. Eastwood, 108 Mo.
41, 18 8. W. 39.
New York. — Jackson v. Whitbeck, 6 Cow.
632, 16 Am. Dec. 454.
Tennessee. — Marr v. Gilliam, 1 Coldw.
488.
8. Throckmorton v. Burr, 5 Cal. 400; Lui
V. Kaleikini, 10 Hawaii 391.
[III. J, 3, d, (II)]
94 [38 Cye.J
TENANCY IN COMMON
(hi) Demand. There is no necessity for a prior demand of possession by
a tenant in common where his cotenant takes a deed to the whole estate and
claims it thereunder, or commits some act equivalent to an ouster.* The
commencement of the action is sufficient demand.'"
(iv) Extent OF Recovery ; Judgment. Upon a finding for plaintiff the
court should define the extent of plaintiff's interest/' and the effect of judgment
for plaintiff is to put plaintiff in possession with defendant/^ and to entitle plaintiff
to possession of his undivided portion of the common property and to his share
of the mesne rents and profits if so by statute provided, but not to sole possession
of any specific portion.'^ He can recover no more than his own portion of the
common estate where he has not disseized his cotenants, together with such
further damages as may be by statute provided,'* and his judgment must be
subject to the rights of defendant cotenants.'^ Under proper circumstances
allowance or reimbursement may be made to defendant for a proper proportion
of the money paid by him while in possession on account of mortgages, taxes,
and interest on the comnlon property and repairs and improvements thereon. '°
Statutes permitting recovery of value for permanent improvements by defendants
in ejectment apply to actions by a cotenant; and the court will apportion expense
of improvements proportionately."
e. Trespass — (i) In General. In the absence of statute or agreement to
the contrary, trespass can be maintained between cotenants where, and only
where, there has been an ouster." Where the circumstances warrant, case is
9. Hebrard v. Jefferson Gold, etc., Min.
Co., 33 Cal. 290; Harrison v. Taylor, 33 Mo.
211, 82 Am. Dec. 159; Clark V: Crego, 47
Barb. (N. Y.) 599; Aiken r. Smith, 21 Vt.
172; Johnson .v. Tilden, 5 Vt. 426.
10. Fenton r. Miller, 116 Mich. 45, 74
N. W. 384, 72 Am. St. Kep. 502.
11. Mahoney v. Middleton, 41 Cal. 41;
Lillianskyoldt i\ Goss, 2 Utah 292; Marshall
V. Palmer, 91 Va. 344, 21 S. E. 672, 50 Am.
St. Rep. 838.
12. Withrow v. Biggerstaff, 82 N. C.
82.
13. California. — Carpentier v. Menden-
hall, 28 Cal. 484, 87 Am. Dec. 135.
Georgia. — Logan c Goodall, 42 Ga. 95.
Kansas. — King r. Hyatt, 51 Kan. 504, 32
Pac. 1105, 37 Am. St. Eep. 304.
Kentucky. — Young v. Adams, 14 B. Hon.
127, 58 Am. Dec. 654.
Massachusetts. — Dewing v. Dewing, 165
Mass. 230, 42 N. E. 1128; Backus r. Chap-
man, 111 Mass. 386; Shepard v. Richards,
2 Gray 424, 61 Am. Dec. 473.
Missouri. — Childs r. Kansas City, etc., R.
Co., (1891) 17 S. W. 954; Falconer v. Rob-
erts, 88 Mo. 574.
NeiD York. — Jones r. De Coursey, 12 N. Y.
App. Div. 164, 42 N. Y. Suppl. 578 [affirmed
in 161 N. Y. 627, 55 N. E. 1096].
Rhode Island. — Knowles v. Harris, 5 R. I.
402, 73 Am. Dec. 77.
Texas. — Puckett v. McDaniel, 8 Tex. Civ.
App. 630, 28 S. W. 360; Bennett v. Virginia
Ranch, etc., Co., 1 Tex. Civ. App. 321, 21
S. W. 126.
Vermont. — Hayden v. Merrill, 44 Vt. 336,
8 Am. Rep. 372.
Virginia. — Marshall v. Palmer, 91 Va.
344, 2'l S. E. 672, 50 Am. St. Rep. 838.
United States.— Cla.j v. Field, 115 U. S.
260, 6 S. Ct. 36, 29 L. ed. 375.
[Ill, J, 3, d, (ill)]
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 115.
Interest. — If the statute provides for an
allowance of interest on retained money had
and received for the use of another, such
interest should be allowed. Armijo u Neher,
11 N. M. 645, 72 Pac. 12.
14. Stevens i-. Ruggles, 23 Fed. Cas. No.
13,408, 5 Mason 221.
15. Jones v. De Lassus, 84 Mo. 541 ; Mar-
shall V. Palmer, 91 Va. 344, 21 S. E. 672,
50 Am. St. Rep. 838.
16. Bodkin i: Arnold, 48 W. Va. 108, 35
S. E. 980; Stewart v. Stewart, 90 Wis. 516,
63 N. W. 886, 48 Am. St. Rep. 949. And see
generally supra, III, E, 2.
Reimbursing third person. — Where a third
person obtaining a deed covering the share
of one tenant in common entered into pos-
session of the entire common property and
made improvements thereunder under the
hona fide belief that he held a good title
thereto, and subsequently the other cotenant
brought ejectment against him for said co-
tenant's share and recovered, it was held that
said third party was entitled to be reim-
bursed by plaintiff so succeeding. Strong v.
Hunt, 20 Vt. 614.
17. Phoenix Lead Min., etc., Co. v. Sydnor,
39 Wis. 600.
18. Alabama. — Foster v. Foster, 2 Stew.
356; Jones v. Perkins, 1 Stew. 512.
Kentucky. — Jones r. Chiles, 8 Dana 163.
Maine. — Mills v. Richardson, 44 Me. 79;
Duncan v. Sylvester, 13 Me. 417, 29 Am.
Dec. 512 (holding that cutting away, cast-
ing off, or setting adrift cotenants' fishing
nets was not a ground for trespass between
cotenants) ; Porter r. Hooper, 13 Me. 25, 29
Am. Dec. 480.
Massachusetts. — Bennett V. Clemence, 6
Allen 10; Arnold v. Stevens, 1 Meto. 266;
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cye.] 95
maintainable between the cotenants," and thus for indirect injuries by cotenants
to the interest or estate of a tenant in common in the common property, he usually
has his action of case against the tort-feasors; ^° but case is held to be not main-
tainable for part of the whole profits arising from the common land, retained by
one of the cotenants thereof .^^ Trespass for mesne profits will lie between coten-
ants." In an action of trespass between tenants in common the admission of
plaintiff's right and an offer to account is no defense.^^
(ii) To Try Title. An ousted cotenant may determine his right to pos-
session in an action of trespass to try title.^* In such an action by a tenant in
Allen v. Carter, 8 Pick. 175; Keay v. Good-
win, 16 Mass. 1. See also Hunting v. Rus-
sell, 2 Cush. 145.
liew Hampshire. — Boynton v. Hodgdon,
59 N. H. 247 ; Thompson v. Gerrish, 57 N. H.
85 ; Wood V. Griffin, 46 N. H. 230.
New York. — King v. Phillips, 1 Lans. 421;
Erwin v. Olmsted, 7 Cow. 229.
Pennsylvania. — Bush v. Gamble, 127 Pa.
St. 43, 17 Atl. 865; Filbert v. Hoff, 42 Pa.
St. 97, 82 Am. Dec. 493; MoGill v. Ash, 7
Jr-a. St. 397.
South Carolina. — Harman v. Gartman,
Harp. 430, 18 Am. Dec. 659; Martin V: Quat-
tlebam, 3 McCord 205.
Vermont. — Wait v. Richardson, 33 Vt.
190, 78 Am. Dec. 622; Booth v. Adams, 11
Vt. 156, 34 Am. Dec. 680.
Canada. — Freeman v. Morton, 3 Nova
Scotia 340; Wemp v. Mormon, 2 U. C. Q. B.
146, holding that if entry be made on the
land of one who is a cotenant with the other
in the crops on said land, the owner of the
land cannot maintain trespass against his
cotenant in the crop for entering the land
merely to remove his share of the crop.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 103.
Possession under a void tax deed is not
sufficient to authorize trespass as against
a tenant in common, having the legal title
to an undivided interest and hence entitled
to possession. Todd v. Lunt, 148 Mass. 322,
19 N. E. 522.
There is no liability in trespass against
a tenant in common who removes a building
from the common land erected without his
consent by his cotenant. Byam v. Bickford,
140 Mass. 31, 2 N. E. 687; Eason v. May-
berry, 1 Nova Scotia 186.
Trespass quare clausum fregit cannot ordi-
narily be maintained between them. Jones
V. Chiles, 8 Dana (Ky.) 163; Duncan v.
Sylvester, 13 Me. 417, 29 Am. Dec. 512; Wait
V. Richardson, 33 Vt. 190, 78 Am. Dec. 622.
Thus the general rule is that trespass quare
clausum fregit or trover will not lie between
cotenants for entering on land owned in com-
mon by them, and removing timber there-
from. Kane v. Garfield, 60 Vt. 79, 13 Atl.
800; Wait v. Richardson, supra. But see
Mills 1/. Richardson, 44 Me. 79.
Effect of agreement. — Whether or not an
agreement amounting to less than a tech-
nical termination or a technical severance of
the common estate or a technical partition
thereof is sufficient to warrant an action of
trespass between the cotenants has been
variously determined. See McPherson v.
Seguine, 14 N. C. 153, holding trespass not
maintainable between tenants in common
even after a parol partition. The better rule
appears to be that where there is a lawful
agreement between all of the cotenants giv-
ing to some of them the right of exclusive
occupation, possession, or enjoyment of the
common property, and such rights are in-
fringed by or under the grantors thereof, an
appropriate action in tort should be main-
tainable, as if the wrong had been committed
by a stranger. Keay v. Goodwin, 16 Mass.
1; Turner v. Waldo, 40 Vt. 51; O'Hear v.
De Goesbriand, 33 Vt. 593, 80 Am. Dec. 653,
a severance in fact by an agreement for sole
occupation, where it was held that tres-
pass was maintainable for the same acts
which would constitute trespass in a
stranger.
19. McGehee v. Peterson, 57 Ala. 333;
Arthur v. Gayle, 38 Ala. 259; Parke v.
KiUiam, 8 Cal. 77, 68 Am. Dec. 310; Booth
V. Sherwood, 12 Minn. 426 (action on the
case, in the nature of waste) ; Anders v.
Meredith, 20 N. C. 339, 34 Am. Dec. 376.
20. Odiorne v. Lyford, 9 N. H. 502, 32 Am.
Dec. 387 (where one tenant in common of a
mill property owned a several estate below
said common estate and erected a dam on
the several estate, in consequence of which
the common property was flooded to the
injury of his cotenant therein, and the
injured cotenant was permitted to maintain
an action on the case in the premises) ;
Chesley v. Thompson, 3 N. H. 9, 14 Am. Dec.
324; Beach v. Child, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 343.
But see Darden v. Cowper, 52 N. C. 210, 75
Am. Dec. 461.
Where the common property has been mis-
used by the wasting of the waters of an
aqueduct over and above the proper share
of the waster thereof an action on the case
is maintainable. McLellan -v. Jenness, 43
Vt. 183, 5 Am. Rep. 270.
Where one tenant in common allowed his
animals to run at large and damage crops
on the common property, case may be
brought. McGehee v. Peterson, 57 Ala. 333;
Morgan v. Hudnell, 52 Ohio St. 552, 40 N. E.
716, 49 Am. St. Rep. 741, 27 L. R. A. 862.
21. Chambers v. Chambers, 10 N. C. 232,
14 Am. Dec. 585.
22. Wait V. Richardson, 33 Vt. 190, 78
Am. Dec. 622; Goodtitle v. Tombs, 3 Wils.
C. P. 118, 95 Eng. Reprint 965.
23. McGill V. Ash, 7 Pa. St. 397.
24. Williams v. Sutton, 43 Cal. 65; Mur-
ray V. Stevens, Rich. Eq. Cas. (S. C.) 205;
St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 1>. Prather, 75 Tex.
[Ill, J, 3, e, (ii)]
96 [38 Cyc]
TENANCY IN COMMON
common against an adverse holder imder a tax deed, plaintiff may recover the
entire tract even though the conveyance to him of his interest is by a particular
description; "^ but plaintiffs, in trespass to try title, cannot recover the entire
property as against a defendant who has acquired title by adverse possession
against some of the coowners who are not parties to the suit.^' If a tenant in
common sues to recover the entire tract in trespass to try title, his petition cannot
be taken as either a repudiation or an afi&rmance of his cotenant's acts in selliag
portions of the tract by metes and bounds.^'
4. Equitable Jurisdiction ^' — a. In General. In matters concerning cotenants
equity jurisdiction will not attach excepting under some equitable principle.
The mere existence of the relation is insufficient.^' If, however, some moving
principle is shown to apply, equity will interfere in cotenancy matters as in others,^"
and may specifically enforce contracts ^^ or cancel them,^^ and equity may interfere
in cases between cotenants in relation to the purchase of outstanding claims or title,
to set aside deeds to third parties, and declare the rights of the respective coten-
ants; ^' and where a tenant in common has sold the entire common estate to an
absent stranger, equity has entertained a bill of a cotenant against the vendor
and the vendee, as an absent defendant, for the confirmation of the sale and a
decree to plaintiff for his share of the purchase-money; ^ and has entertained
63, 12 S. W. 969; Gilmer r. Beauchamp, 40
Tex. Civ. App. 125, 87 S. W. 907; Hintze v.
Krabbenschmidt (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 44
S. W. 38.
Possession when the trespass was com-
mitted is essential to support the action.
Harvin l-. Hodge, Dudley (S. C.) 23.
By grantee by metes and bounds. — Tres-
pass to try title may be maintained by a
tenant in common asserting title by metes
and bounds, against one who shows no title.
Gray v. Kauffman, 82 Tex. 65, 17 S. W. 513.
25. JMcDonald v. Hamblen, 78 Tex. 628,
14 S. W. 1042.
26. Boone v. Knox, 80 Tex. 642, 16 S. W.
448, 26 Am. St. Rep. 767.
27. Zimpleman r. Power, 38 Tex. Civ. App.
263, 85 S. W. 69. See also Stubblefield v.
Hanson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1906) 94 S. W. 406.
28. Equitable accounting see supra. III,
J, 1, d.
29. Alaska. — Garside v. Norval, 1 Alaska
19.
Maine. — Carter v. Bailey, 64 Me. 458, 18
Am. Rep. 273.
Massachusetts. — Blood v. Blood, 110 Mass.
545.
XetD Jersey. — Martin v. Martin, (Ch. ) 23
Atl. 822.
Jiew York. — Van Bergen v. Van Bergen, 3
Johns. Ch. 282, 8 Am. Dec. 511.
OAto.— Weakly v. Hall, 13 Ohio 167, 42
Am. Dec. 194.
Pennsylvania. — Orbin i\ Stevens, 13 Pa.
Super. Ct. 591.
South Carolina. — ^Murray v. Stevens, Rich.
Eq. Cas. 205.
Canada. — Bates v. Martin, 12 Grant Ch.
(U. C.) 490.
30. Alabama. — Johns v. Johns, 93 Ala.
239, 9 So. 419.
Arkansas. — Trapnall r. Hill, 31 Ark. 345.
Georgia. — Smith v. King, 50 Ga. 192.
Massachusetts. — Field r. Craig, 8 Allen
357; May v. Parker, 12 Pick. 34, 22 Am.
Dee. 393.
[Ill, J, 3, e, (n)]
Vermont. — Walker i\ Pierce, 38 Vt. 94.
Wisconsin. — Saladin v. Kraayvanger, 96
Wis. 180, 70 N. W. 1113.
United States. — Union Mill, etc., Co. v.
Dangberg, 81 Fed. 73; Goldsmith v. Smith,
21 Fed. 611.
A tender must be made with a bill in
equity to dissolve a cloud on title arising
from the purchase of an outstanding title by
a cotenant. Morris v. Roseberry, 46 W. Va.
24, 32 S. E. 1019.
Sale in lieu of partition. — Equity may, in
the absence of a remedy at law, entertain a
bill at the instance of a cotenant, for the
sale of the common property in lieu of par-
tition, where a partition is impracticable for
the purpose of making an equitable allow-
ance out of the proceeds to such complain-
ant, where he has made proper expenditures
on the common property for the common
benefit. Drennen v. Walker, 21 Ark. 539;
Van Ormer r. Harley, 102 Iowa 150, 71
N. W. 241 ; Danforth v. Moore, 55 N. J. Eq.
127, 35 Atl. 410.
Equity will not permit tenants in common
by descent to assume a hostile attitude to-
ward each other in reference to the common
property, as their relation is a confidential
one by operation of law. Tisdale v. Tisdale,
2 Sneed (Tenn.) 596, 64 Am. Dec. 775.
31. In re Coates St., 2 Ashm. (Pa.) 12,
holding that a lawful agreement for mutual
releases between cotenants about to make
partition will, even after such partition, be
enforced between them.
32. Sires v. Sires, 43 S. C. 266, 21 S. E.
115, holding that an action for the cancel-
lation of a recorded deed under a power in a
will, alleged to be unauthorized, without
consideration and fraudulent, may be main-
tained by cotenants not in possession, even
in the absence of actual ouster.
33. Eads v. Retherford, 114 Ind. 273, 16
N. E. 587, 5 Am. St. Rep. 611; Mahoney v.
iNevins, 190 Mo. 360, 88 S. W. 731.
34. Pollard v. Coleman, 4 Call (Va.) 245.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cye.J 97
a bill by a tenant in common in possession for the establishment of boundaries.'^
It may enforce an equitable lien to secure proper contribution for a cotenant who
has removed encumbrances from the common property or otherwise properly
expended moneys for the common benefit;'" or it may declare a cotenant so
expending moneys to be an assignee in equity for the purpose of compelling con-
tribution; " and if an entire lien debt be due from one cotenant to another the
latter may maintain foreclosure proceedings.'* Equity will not permit the pur-
chase of an outstanding claim or title for the purpose of defeating a cotenant's
rights in the common property, where fiduciary relations or a relationship of
confidence is shown to exist between them in relation thereto;'" but where a
tenant in common invokes equity against his cotenants to share the benefit of the
purchase of an outstanding claim or to share the benefit of a bargain in relation
to the common property or title, the complainant must show that he has promptly
paid or tendered payment of his proportionate share of the expenses incident to
said transaction and properly chargeable to the cotenancy,*" or that he is ready
and willing within a reasonable time to bear his share of such expenses.*' No
equitable lien arising from the purchase of an outstanding title applies in equity
against the common property in the hands of a hona fide purchaser for value,
without notice, where the party seeking such lien has been guilty of laches or
fraud.*^
b. Injunction *' — (i) In General. An injunction may issue to restrain an
interference by a tenant in common with his cotenant's rights in the enjoyment
of the common property, or the interference with such rights by a stranger," or
against the exercise of exclusive ownership in the premises without the consent
of the cotenants,*^ or the threatened or continued breach of a lawful agreement
between the cotenants.*' But jurisdiction of equity in granting injunction is
35. Gushing V. Miller, 62 N. H. 517.
36. Illinois. — Titsworth v. Stout, 49 111.
78, 95 Am. Dec. 577.
Indiana. — Moon v. Jennings, 119 Ind. 130,
20 N. E. 748, 21 N. E. 471, 12 Am. St. Kep.
383.
Maine. — Williams v. Coombs, 88 Me. 183,
33 Atl. 1073.
Michigan. — Norris v. Hill, 1 Mich. 202.
Mississippi. — AUen v. Poole, 54 Miss. 323.
Pennsylvania. — Richards v. Richards, 31
Pa. Super. Ct. 509.
37. Green v. Walker, 22 R. I. 14, 45 Atl.
742.
38. Holmes v. Holmes, 129 Mich. 412, 89
N. W. 47, 95 Am. St. Rep. 444; Burnett v.
Ewing, 39 Wash. 45, 80 Pac. 855.
39. United New Jersey R., etc., Co. v. Con-
solidated Fruit Jar Co., (N. J. Ch. 1903) 55
Atl. 46.
40. Kershaw v. Simpson, 46 Wash. 313, 89
Pac. 889; Spalding v. Lewis, 42 Wash. 528,
85 Pac. 255.
41. Niday v. Cochran, 42 Tex. Oiv. App.
292, !)3 S. W. 1027.
He may be compelled to account to his co-
tenants for his proportion of such expenses.
Glos V. Clark, 97 111. App. 609 \:re'aersed on
other grounds in 199 111. 147, 65 N. E. 135] ;
Arey v. Hall, 81 Me. 17, 16 Atl. 302, 10 Am.
St. Rep. 232.
42. Ryason v. Dunten, 164 Ind. 85, 73
N. E. 74.
43. To restrain waste see infra, III, J,
4, b, (II).
44. Binswanger v. Henninger, 1 Alaska
509 (appropriating the entire proceeds of a
[7]
mine) ; Smith v. Stearns Rancho Co., 129
Cal. 58, 61 Pac. 662; Van Bergen f. Van
Bergen, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 282, 8 Am.
Dec. 511.
A tenant in common in sole possession of
a ferry may maintain a bill for an injunc-
tion against another ferry being operated
within limitations prohibited by law. For-
tain V. Smith, 114 Cal. 494, 46 Pac. 381.
Trespass committed in the exercise of a
servitude created by one tenant in common
of the property without the consent of hia
cotenant justifies equitable interference. Jack-
son V. State Belt Electric St. R. Co., 7 North.
Co. Rep. (Pa.) 286.
Interfering with water rights see Union
Mill, etc., Co. V. Dangberg, 81 Fed. 73; Still-
man V. White Rock Mfg. Co., 23 Fed. Cas. No.
13,446, 3 Woodb. & M. 538.
45. Colorado. — Mills v. Hart, 24 Colo. 505,
'52 Pac. 680, 65 Am. St. Rep. 241.
Georgia. — Daniel v. Daniel, 102 Ga. 181,
28 S. E. 167.
Michigan. — Williams v. Rogers, 110 Mich.
4L8, 68 N. W. 240.
Montana. — Butte, etc., Consol. Min. Co. v.
Montana Ore Purchasing Co., 25 Mont. 41,
63 Pac. 826; Red Mountain Consol. Min. Co.
V. Esler, 18 Mont. 174, 44 Pac. 523 ; Anaconda
Copper Min. Co. «. Butte, etc., Min. Co., 17
Mont. 51'9, 43 Pac. 924.
North Carolina. — Morrison v. Morrison,
122 N. C. 598, 29 S. E. 901.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 104.
46. Fullington v. Kyle Lumber Co., 139
Ala. 242, 35 So. 852.
[III. J, 4, b, (l)]
98 [38 Cycj
TENANCY IN COMMON
sparingly exercised/' and equity will not ordinarily interfere in matters of coten-
ancy where no fiduciary relations exist between the tenants in common and there
is ample remedy at law; ^' and thus in the absence of statute or agreement to the
contrary a tenant in common cannot, ordinarily by injunction, exclude his cotenant
from the enjoyment of the common property.*' In such a case complainant
must, in order to obtain relief by injunction, prove a right to the sole enjoyment
and possession of the entire premises as against defendant; if it be shown that
defendant is a tenant in common with plaintiff and is merely exercising his right
of the use and occupation of the common property, the latter cannot succeed.^"
But it has been held that the rule is different where a bill is pending for a partition
of. the premises; ^' and that an injunction may issue against execution on a judg-
ment in ejectment until after payment for improvements;" and although it is
not ordinarily competent for an equity court to interfere by injunction merely
because one tenant in common holds exclusive possession of the entire estate,
where he does not prevent his cotenants therein from entering and enjoying the
possession with him, even in such case, under peculiar equitable circumstances,
an injunction may issue.^^ It is no defense to a bill for injunction between coten-
ants to restrain trespass that plaintiff has trespassed on defendant's interest ;
such matter can only be considered in framing the relief.^*
(ii) To Restrain Waste.. If the circumstances warrant, tenants in com-
mon may enjoin each other from waste or appropriating the entire proceeds of
the common property.^^ Thus an injunction may issue as between cotenants
where there is an injury to the common property amounting to waste, tending
47. Obert v. Obert, 5 K J. Eq. 397.
48. Mason v. Norris, 18 Grant Cb. (U. C.)
500; Bates v. Martin, 12 Grant Cb. (U. C.)
490.
49. Thompson v. Sanders, 113 Ga. 1024,
39 S. E. 419; Leatberbury v. Mclnnis, 85
Miss. 160, 37 So. 1018; People v. Golding,
55 Misc. (N. Y.) 425, 106 N. Y. Suppl. 821.
50. Hihn v. Pack, 18 Cal. 640; Glynn
County Bd. of Education v. Day, 128 Ga. 156,
57 S. E. 359; Country Club Land Assoc. V:
Lohbauer, 187 N. Y. 106, 7« N. E. «44 [af-
firming 110 N. Y. App. Div. 875, 97 N. Y.
Suppl. 11]. See Baker v. Casey, 19 Grant
Cb. (U. C.) 637; Christie v. Saunders, 2
Grant Cb. (U. C.) 670.
51. Lassert v. Salyerda, 17 Grant Ch.
(U. C.) 109.
.52. Russell v. Defrance, 39 Mo. 506.
53. Baker v. Casey, 17 Grant Ch. (U. C.)
195; Bates v. Martin, 12 Grant Ch. (U. C.)
490.
54. Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Forty-second
St., etc., R. Co., 48 N. Y. Super. Ct. 489.
55. Alaska. — Binswanger f. Henninger, 1
Alaska 509.
Colorado. — Mills v. Hart, 24 Colo. 505, 52
Pac. 680, 65 Am. St. Rep. 241.
Georgia. — Daniel v. Daniel, 102 Ga. 181,
28 S. E. 167.
Michigan. — Williams v. Rogers, 110 Mich.
418, 68 N. W. 240; Penton v. Miller, 108
Mich. 246, 66 N. W. 966.
Mississippi. — Leatberbury v. Mclnnis, 85
Miss. 160, 37 So. 1018.
Montana. — Butte, etc., Consol. Min. Co.
V. Montana Ore Purchasing Co., 25 Mont.
41, 63 Pac. 826; Harrigan v. Lynch, 21 Mont.
36, 52 Pac. 642.
North Carolina. — 'Morrison V. Morrison,
122 N. C. 598, 29 S. E. 901.
[Ill, J, 4, b, (I)]
Oregon. — Grant f. Paddock, 30 Greg. 312,
47 Pac; 712.
South Dakota. — Wood v. Steinau, 9 S. D.
110, 68 N. W. 160.
Texas. — Tignor v. Toney, 13 Tex. Civ. App.
518, 35 S. W. 881.
After a bill for partition a joint tenant
will be restrained on the complaint of bis
cotenant from committing waste, although
the general principle is that injunction will
not lie between cotenants for its commission.
Lassert v. Salyerds, 17 Grant Ch. (U. C.)
109.
Malicious destruction may be a ground to
stay waste. Hole (-. Thomas, 7 Ves. Jr. 689,
6 Rev. Rep. 195, 32 Eng. Reprint 237.
Mining. — An injunction may issue to re-
sti'ain waste or the appropriation of the en-
tire proceeds of the common mining prop-
erty by a tenant in common thereof. Bins-
wanger v. Henninger, 1 Alaska 509; Butte,
etc., Consol. Min. Co. f. Montana Ore Pur-
chasing Co., 26 Mont. 41, 63 Pac. 825; Ana-
conda Copper Min. Co. v. Butte, etc., Min.
Co., 17 Mont. 619, 43 Pac. 924; Tipping v.
Bobbins, 71 Wis. 507, 37 N. W. 427; Goode-
now V. Farquhar, 19 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 614;
Dougall V. Foster, 4 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 319.
And it is immaterial, in an action by tenants
in common to restrain a cotenant from exer-
cising exclusive ownership over the common
property, that -defendant's work enhances the
value thereof. Harrigan v. Lynch, 21 Mont.
3fi, 52 Pac. 642. So as to quarrying stone
by the lessee of a cotenant. Goodenow v.
Farquhar, 19 Grant Cb. (U. C.) 614. But
in the absence of wilful or unnecessary in-
jury or destruction, caused by negligence or
unskilfulness, one tenant in common will not,
at the instance of his cotenants, be enjoined
from prosecuting the business of mining on
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 CycJ 99
to destroy the chief value thereof to the party complaining,^' or to restrain waste,
where a statute provided that an action of waste may lie between cotenants; ^'
but such jurisdiction is sparingly exercised,^' and equity will not ordinarily enjoin
waste at the suit of a tenant in common against his cotenants except where it is
destructive of the inheritance, or such cotenant is insolvent, or there is some
other special equitable reasons for interfering.^"
5. Construction of Statutes Relating to Actions Involving Cotenancy. The
rights and remedies of cotenants have been considerably modified by statutes
their common claim. McCord v. Oakland
Quicksilver Min. Co., 64 Cal. 134, 27 Pac.
863, 49 Am. Eep. 686. This rule is subject
to modification according to respective stat-
utes (see Harrigan v. Lynch, 21 Mont. 36,
52 Pac. 642) ; or according to the peculiar
circumstances of the particular case, as where
it is alleged that the complaining party owns
the larger interest in said claim, that it is
being worked without the consent and against
the wishes of plaintiflF, and that defendant ia
not dividing the proceeds thereof in good faith,
thus bringing defendant within the terms of
a statute in relation to exclusive ownership
(Red Mountain Consol. Min. Co. -e. Ealer,
18 Mont. 174, 44 Pac. 523). It is not waste
for a tenant in common therein to get, or
license to get, a coal mine in the ordinary
course of working; such workings are not a
trespass where less than the proper share of
said cotenant was taken. It is a matter of
accounting on the basis of the value of the
coal at the pit's mouth less all costs of getting
and receiving it. Job v. Potton, L. R. 20
Eq. 84, 44 L. J. Ch. 262, 32 L. T. Eep. N. S.
110, 23 Wkly. Eep. 588.
56. Stout V. Curry, 110 Ind. 514, 11 N. B.
487; Leatherbury v. Mclnnis, 86 Miss. 160,
37 So. 1018, 107 Am. St. Rep. 274. And see
infra, this note.
Timber. — ^As a general rule a tenant in
common in timber lands has no right to cut
the timber thereon without the consent of his
coowners if such cutting amounts to waste;
and an injunction may issue restraining him
from so doing. Stout v. Curry, 110 Ind. 514,
11 N. E. 487; Dodge v. Davis, 85 Iowa 77, 52
N. W. 2; Cotten v. Christen, 110 La. 444, 34
So. 597; State v. Judge of Fourth Judicial
Dist. Ct., 52 La. Ann. 103, 26 So. 769;
Wilbert's Sons Lumber, etc., Co. ■;;. Patureau,
44 La. Ann. 355, 10 So. 782; Johnson v.
Johnson, 2 Hill Eq. (S. C.) 277, 29 Am. Dec.
72. And equity will enjoin a tenant in com-
mon from stripping the land of its timber
pending a bill in equity. Bradley v. Reed,
3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,785; Proudfoot v. Bush,
7 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 518. But an injunc-
tion will not be granted to prevent the cut-
ting pf timber on the premises not amount-
ing to waste, in the absence of other equitable
reasons (Hihn V. Peck, 18 Cal. 640; Brittain
V. Parker, 12 Nova Scotia 589) ; nor may a
bill for partition and for an injunction
against cutting timber trees on land owned
in common be sustained where the only alle-
gation in relation to the reasons therefor
is that timber had been cut on the common
land and sold by defendants, and there is
neither averment of insolvency of defendants
nor that the amount of timber so cut ex-
ceeded defendants' share (Hihn v. Peek, 18
Cal. 640). If it appear, in the case of a
writ forbidding the cutting and removal of
timber, that such timber had been cut on
land owned by the parties in common, the
court may open the writ and allow defend-
ant to remove the timber cut, under proper
security given by defendant for the protec-
tion of plaintiff (Hensal v. Wright, 10 Pa.
Co. Ct. 416). Even if no injunction issue
except in cases of actual destruction, never-
theless where a tenant in common is also
trustee under a will of the interest of the
owner of another moiety therein, and in
breach of the trust cuts timber thereon for
his own benefit, such action will be enjoined.
Christie v. Saunders, 2 Grant Ch. (U. C.)
670. In the absence of a showing of irregu-
larity in the value of timber growing in
different parts of the common tract, an in-
junction should only restrain the destruc-
tion of more than defendant's share. Leather-
bury V. Mclnnis, 84 Miss. 160, 37 So. 1018,
107 Am. St. Rep. 274.
.57. Michigan. — Fenton v. Miller, 108 Mich.
246, 65 N. W. 966.
Worth Carolina. — Morrison V. Morrison,
122 N. C. 598, 29 S. E. 901.
Oregon. — Grant v. Paddock, 30 Oreg. 312,
47 Pac. 712.
South Dakota. — Wood x>. Steinau, 9 S. D.
110, 68 N. W< 160.
Texas. — Tignor v. Toney, 13 Tex. Civ. App.
518, 35 S. W. 881.
58. Obert v. Obert, 5 N. J. Bq. 397.
In the absence of negligence, or wilful or
negligent injury or destruction, injunction
will not issue. McCord v. Oakland Quick-
silver Min. Co., 64 Cal. 134, 27 Pac. 863, 49
Am. Rep. 686; Jackson v. Beach, (N. J. Ch.
1886) 3 Atl. 375. It is intimated that or-
dinarily no injunction lies except in eases
of actual destruction. Christie v. Saunders,
2 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 670.
59. Hihn v. Peck, 18 Cal. 640; Stout v.
Curry, 110 Ind. 514, 11 N. E. 487; Carter v.
Bailey, 64 Me. 458, 18 Am. Eep. 273; Duvall
V. Waters, 1 Bland (Md.) 569, 18 Am. Dec.
350; Blood v. Blood, 110 Mass. 545; Vose v.
Singer, 4 Allen (Mass.) 226, 81 Am. Dec.
696.
Injunction denied against the keeping of
a liquor saloon on the common property
wTiere no special injury is shown; and there
is nothing to show that the injury to said
property is irreparable or that a continuance
of the alleged abuse is threatened and im-
[III, J, 5]
100 [38 Cye.J
TENANCY IN COMMON
in the respective jurisdictions, and cases apparently divergent are so because of
such statutory changes. *" Statutes conferring jurisdiction in equity,*' or at law,°^
in actions or proceedings relating to tenants in common, are liberally construed, "^
as are statutes in relation to the joinder or non-joinder of parties, ^^ and statutes
relating to amount of damages, extent of recovery, and the granting of remedies
for the benefit of cotenants have been so construed as to maintain and further
their respective rights as those of owners in severalty. °^
6. Limitations. Although statutes of limitation may apply in matters between
tenants in common, the time for the commencement of the running of the statute
is intended to be fixed by the courts at such a period as wiU not deprive a tenant
in common of the advantage of any presumption in his favor, or of any rightful
minent see Oglesby Coal Co. v. Pasco, 79 111.
164.
60. See the statutes of the several states.
And see Hazen v. Wight, 87 Me. 233, 32 Atl.
887 ; Mills ;;. Eichardson, 44 Me. 79 ; Proctor
V. Proctor, 182 Mass. 415, 63 N. E. 797;
Hastings t. Hastings, 110 Mass. 280; Adams
v. Palmer, 6 Gray (Mass.) 338; Shepard v.
Pettit, 30 Minn. 119, 14 N. W. 511; Blake
V. Milliken, 14 N. H. 213; Bush v. Gamhle,
127 Pa. St. 43, 17 Atl. 865; Bohlen v. Ar-
thurs, 115 U. S. 482, 6 S. Ct. 114, 29 L. ed.
454.
Conflict of laws. — Where a tortious act is
done in relation to water by a tenant in com-
mon or tenants in common therein, injuri-
ously affecting the rights of their cotenants,
the law governing is that of the state within
the borders of which the injurious act is done.
Stillman r. White Rock Mfg. Co., 23 Fed.
Cas. No. 13,446, 3 Woodb. & M. 538.
61. May v. Parker, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 34,
22 Am. Dec. 393.
Where the parties litigant are not' tenants
in common, but intended to become such, a
statute conferring equitable jurisdiction in
matters between tenants in common cannot be
exercised. Flagg i". Mann, 14 Pick. (Mass.)
467.
62. California. — Wagoner t: Silva, 139 Cal.
559, 73 Pae. 433.
Connecticut. — Fowler v. Fowler, 50 Conn.
256.
Illinois. — Benjamin v. Stremple, 13 111.
466, trover.
Missouri. — Falconer v. Roberts, S8 Mo.
574 (ejectment) ; Rogers v. Penniston, 16
Mo. 432.
Pennsylvania. — iBush v. Gamble, 127 Pa.
St. 43, 17 Atl. 865, trespass between coten-
ants for the wrongful cutting and removing
of timber trees.
Wisconsin. — Wood v. Noack, 84 Wis. 398,
54 N. W. 78'5, for the severance of easily
divisible property.
Forcible entry and detainer see Presbrey v.
Presbrey, 13> Allen (Mass.) 281; Allen v. Gib-
son, 4 Rand. (Va.) 468.
63. Richardson v. Richardson, 72 Me. 403;
Hayden v. Merrill, 44 Vt. 336, 8 Am. Rep.
372.
Concuiient remedies. — Statutes conferring
jurisdiction on equity courts have been held
not to deprive the law courts of their juris-
diction in the premises, but merely to give
concurrent remedies. Fanning v. Chadwick,
[HI. J, 5]
3 Pick. (Mass.) 420, 15 Am. Dec. 233; Har-
rington t: Florence Oil Co., 178 Pa. St. 444,
36 Atl. 855; Winton Coal Co. v. Pancoast
Coal Co., 170 Pa. St. 437, 33 Atl. 110.
If a cotenant is deprived of certain rights
by statute, equity may nevertheless grant
him relief. Johns v. Johns, 93 Ala. 239, 9
So. 419.
Water rights. — Where a sta,tute confers
jurisdiction on equity in all disputes between
tenants in common where there is no ade-
quate remedy at law, equity has jurisdiction
to maintain a bill complaining of the use
of water by a cotenant of a mill in another
mill where he has sole ownership, to the
derogation of the rights of his coowners in
the first-named mill. May v. Parker, 12 Pick.
(Mass.) 34, 22 Am. Dee. 393.
64. See Smith v. Stearns Rancho Co., 129
Cal. 58, 61 Pae. 662 (joinder in injunction
against interference by adverse claimant) ;
Lee Chuck v. Quan Wo Chong, 91 Cal. 593,
28 Pae. 45; Ross v. Heintzen, 36 Cal. 313;
Presbrey K. Presbrey, 13 Allen (Mass.) 281;
Bannister r. Bull, 16 S. C. 220; Mather v.
Dunn, 11 S. D. 196, 76 N. W. 922, 74 Am.
St. Rep. 788' (the words "united in interest"
construed to apply to tenants in common, so
as to require their joinder in an action) ;
Karren v. Rainey, 30 Utah 7, 83 Pae. 333;
Boley V. AUred, 25 Utah 402, 71 Pae. 869;
Allen f. Gibson, 4 Rand. (Va.) 468.
65. McDodrill v. Pardee, etc., Lumber Co.,
40 W. Va. 564, 21 S. E. 878.
Statutes providing for punitive damages
held not to be enforceable as between coten-
ants see Richardson v. Richardson, 64 Me.
62; Jenkins r. Woods, 145 Mass. 494, 14
N. E. 512; Bush v. Gamble, 127 Pa. St. 43,
17 Atl. 865; Wheeler v. Carpenter, 107 Pa.
St. 271. Compare Mills v. Richardson, 44
Me. 79.
Statutes held inapplicable between tenants
in common see Barnum v. Landon, 25 Conn.
137; Elliott r. Frakes, 90 Ind. 389; Patterson
V. Nixon, 79 Ind. 251; Hastings v. Hastings,
110 Mass. 2,80; King v. Dickerman, 11 Gray
(Mass.) 480; Adams f. Palmer, 6 Gray
(Mass.) 336; Gregg v. Roaring Springs Land,
etc., Co., 97 Mo. App. 447, 70 S. W. 920;
Wharton v. Wilkerson, 92 N. C. 407; North
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Snowden, 42 Pa. St
48S, 82 Am. Dec. 530; Tipping v. Robbins,
64 Wis. 546, 25 N. W. 713; Bohlen v. Ar-
thurs, 115 U. S. 482, 6 S. Ct. 114, 29 L. ed.
454.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38Cye.] lOl
advantage to which he is fairly entitled because of the relationship of cotenancy. °°
Unless such statutes are clearly applicable to cases of cotenancy, they will not
be so applied.*" But it has been held that the statute of limitations applies, as
between cotenants, to an accounting,"' and a cotenant receiving the income of
lands owned in common is not a trustee of the moneys received by him, but a
mere debtor to whom the ordinary rules of limitations apply, '"' and where the
tenant in common in possession and sole enjoyment of the common property
receives the rents and profits of it to his own use claiming them as his own, the
statute of limitations will run against the right of the other to claim an accounting
from the time of an ouster or of a demand and refusal to account; in the absence
of such ouster or demand and refusal the collection of rents and profits wUl be
regarded as an act of agency.'"
IV. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF COTENANTS AS TO THIRD PERSONS.
A. Authority of Cotenants to Bind Each Other — 1. Rule Stated.
Under ordinary circumstances neither tenant in common can bind the estate or
person of the other by any act in relation to the common property, not previously
authorized or subsequently ratified,'^ for cotenants do not sustain the relation
66. Adams v. Palmer, 6 Gray (Mass.) 3'38;
Saunders v. Gatlin, 21 N. C. 86; Wagstaff f.
Smith, 17 N. C. 264.
Destruction of chattel. — A claim, between
cotenants, for the destruction of a chattel,
is ordinarily within the operation of the
statute of limitations. Saunders v. Gatlin,
21 N. C. 86.
67. Pope f. Brasfield, 110 Ky. 128, 61
S. W. 5, 22 Ky. L. Eep. 1613, holding that
the doctrine, that in a matter against par-
ceners or joint tenants, some of whom are
under no disability, the statute runs against
all, cannot be applied as • against cotenants,
as they own severally, and might sue sev-
erally.
Statutes held applicable see Alvarado v.
Nordholt, 95 Cal. 116, 30 Pac. 211; Dawson
f. Edwards, 189 111. 60, 59 N. E. 590; Culler
f. Motzer, 13 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 356, 15 Am.
Dec. 604; McCann v. Welch, 106 Wis. 142, 81
N. W. 996.
Statutes held to be inapplicable see Cooter
V. Dearborn, 115 111. 509, 4 N. E. 388; Stern
V. Selleck, 136 Iowa 291, 11 N. W. 451; Jonas
V. Flanniken, 69 Miss. 577, 11 So. 319; Brooks
V. Fowle, 14 N. H. 248; Mott v. Carolina
Land, etc., Co., 146 N. C. 525, 60 S. E. 423';
Tharpe v. Holcomb, 126 N. C. 365, 35 S. B.
608; Jeter v. Davis, 109 N. C. 458, 13 S. B.
908; Hampton v. Wheeler, 99 N. C. 222, 6
S. E. 236; Breden v. McLaurin, 98 N. O.
307, 4 S. E. 136; Page v. Branch, 97 N. C.
97, 1 S. E. 625; Hicks v. Bullock, 96 N. C.
164, 1 S. E. 629; Tanney K. Tanney, 24 Pittsb.
Leg. J. N. S. (Pa.) 43 [affirmed in 159 Pa.
St. 277, 28 Atl. 287, 3« Am. St. Eep. 678] ;
Metz V. Metz, 48 S. C. 472, 26 S. E. 787;
Van Velsor v. Hughson, 45 U. C. Q. B. 252
lafflrmed in 9 Ont. App. 390].
68. Jolly V. Bryan, 86 N. C. 457 ; Wagstaff
V. Smith, 39 N. C. 1; Keller v. Lamb, 202
Pa. St. 412, 51 Atl. 982; Corbett v. Laurens,
5 Eich. Eq. (S. C.) 301.
69. St. John V. Coates, 63 Hun (N. Y.)
460, 19 N. Y. Suppl. 419 [affirmed in 140
N. Y. 634, 35 N. E. 891].
70. Georgia.— B.ufl v. McDonald, 22 Ga.
131, 68 Am. Dec. 487.
North Carolina. — Jolly v. Bryan, 86 N. C.
457 ; Northcot v. Casper, 41 N. C. 303 ; Wag-
staff V. Smith, 39 N. C. 1.
South Carolina: — Corbett v. Laurens, 5
Rich. Eq. 301.
Tennessee. — Terrill v. Murry, 4 Yerg. 104.
Canada. — iSe Kirkpatrick, 10 Ont. Pr. 4.
If jurisdiction be concurrent at law and in
equity, then the legal bar of limitations ap-
plies in equity; not as a matter of law but
as a matter of comity. But limitations ap-
plicable at law ought never to operate, in
equity, to extinguish plaintiff's smaller claim
as against defendant's set-off for a larger
amount. Talbott v. Todd, 5 Dana (Ky.)
190.
71. Alabama. — Mylin v. King, 139 Ala.
319, 35 So. 998; Johnston v. Jones, 85 Ala.
286, 4 So. 748.
Arkansas. — Friar v. Baldridge, 91 Ark.
133, 120 S. W. 989, holding that an agree-
ment by one tenant to resell the land or to
rescind the contract of purchase would not
bind his cotenant.
California. — Mahoney v. Van Winkel, 21
Cal. 552; Pearis v. Covillaud, 6 Cal. 617, 65
Am. Dec. 543. See also Crary v. Campbell,
24 Cal. 634.
Connecticut. — Barnum v. Landon, 25 Conn.
137.
Illinois. — ^Appell t: Appell, 235 111. 27, 86
N. E. 205; Chappell v. McKnight, 108 111.
670; Murray v. Haverty, 70 111. 318.
Iowa. — Anderson v. Acheson, 132 Iowa 744,
110 N. W. 335; Blackledge v. Davis, 129 Iowa
591, 105 N. W. 1000; Forrest Milling Co. v.
Cedar Falls Mill Co., 103 Iowa 619, 72 N. W.
1076.
Louisiana. — Kenopski v. Davis, 27 La. Ann.
174.
Maine. — Longfellow v. Quimby, 29 Me, 196,
48 Am. Dec. 525. Compare Rogers v. White,
6 Me. 193.
Maryland. — Eakle •;;. Clark, 30 Md. 322.
Massachusetts. — Johnson v. Stevens, 7
[IV, A. I]
102 [38 Cyc]
TENANCY IN COMMON
of principal and agent to each other nor are they partners and the rule which
Cush. 431; Miller f. Miller, 7 Pick. 133, 19
Am. Dec. 264.
Michigan. — Walker v. Marion, 143 Mich.
27, 106 N. W. 400; Tuttle v. Campbell, 74
Mich. 652, 42 N. W. 384, 16 Am. St. Rep.
652 ; Eichey v. Brown, 58 Mich. 435, 25 N. W.
386.
Minnesota. — Loveridge f. Coles, 72 Minn.
57, 74 N. W. 1109.
Missouri. — Nalle v. Thompson, 173 Mo.
595, 73 S. W. 599; Kansas City Hydraulic
Press Brick Co. v. Pratt, 114 Mo. App. 643,
93 S. W. 300 ; Walker v. Evans, 98 Mo. App.
301, 71 S. W. 1086.
New Jersey. — King v. Wilson, 54 N. J.
Eq. 247, 34 Atl. 394.
Weio York. — Whiton v. Spring, 74 N. Y.
169; Jackson V. Moore, 94 N. Y. App. Div.
504, 87 N. Y. Suppl. 1101; Knope i;. Nunn,
81 Hun 349, 30 N. Y. Suppl. 896 [affirmed in
151 N. Y. 506, 45 N. E. 940, 56 Am. St. Eep.
642]; Dobson v. Kuhnla, 66 Hun 627, 20
N. Y. Suppl. 771; St. Paul's Church v. Ford,
34 Barb. 16; Gock v. Keneda, 29 Barb. 120;
Matter of New York, 41 Misc. 134, 83 N. Y.
Suppl. 951 ; Jackson v. Moore, 6 Cow. 706.
North Carolina. — Mitchem v. Wallace, 150
N. C. 640, 64 S. E. 901; Lenoir r. Valley
Eiver Min. Co., 113 N. C. 513, 18 S. E. 73;
Causee v. Anders, 20 N. C. 388.
Ohio. — Thomason v. Dayton, 40 Ohio St.
63.
Oregon. — Beezley v. Crossen, 14 Oreg. 473,
13 Pac. 306.
Pennsylvania. — Mercur r. State Line, etc.,
E. Co., 171 Pa. St. 12, 32 Atl. 1126; McKinley
V. Peters, 111 Pa. St. 283, 3 Atl. 27; Work-
man V. Guthrie, 29 Pa. St. 495, 72 Am. Dec.
654; Agnew t. Johnson, 17 Pa. St. 373, 55
Am. Dec. 565; Heeter v. Lvon, 5 Pa. Super.
Ct. 260.
Rhode Island. — Dexter Lime Eock Co. v.
Dexter, 6 R. I. 353.
Tennessee. — ^Vaughan v. Cravens, 1 Head
108, 73 Am. Dec. 163.
Teseas. — Thomas v. Morse, 80 Tex. 289, 16
S. W. 48; Torrey v. Martin, (1887) 4 S. W.
642; Kirby v. Hayden, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 207,
99 S. W. 746; Hintze v. Krabbenschmidt,
(Civ. App. 1897) 44 S. W. 38; Gillum !;. St.
Louis, etc., E. Co., 4 Tex. Civ. App. 622, 23
S. W. 716.
Virginia. — Kemper «. Ewing, 25 Gratt.
427.
Wisconsin. — Tipping v. Eobbins, 64 Wis.
546, 25 N. W. 713.
United States. — Williams v. Morrison, 28
Fed. 872.
England. — Durham, etc., E. Co. v. Wawn,
3 Beav. 119, 4 Jur. 764, 43 Eng. Ch. 119, 49
Eng. Eeprint 47.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 119 et seq.
One tenant cannot grant or create an ease-
ment in the common property without the
precedent authority or subsequent ratifica-
tion of the other tenants in common. Pfeiffer
v. State University, 74 Cal. 156, 15 Pac. 622 ;
Marshall V. Trumbull, 28 Conn. 183, 73 Am
[IV, A. 1]
Dec. 667; Charleston, etc., E. Co. v. Fleming,
118 Ga. 699, 45 S. E. 664; Forrest Milling
Co. V. Cedar Falls Mill Co., 103 Iowa 619, 72
N. W. 1076; Baker v. Willard, 171 Mass.
220, 50 N. E. 620, 68 Am. St. Eep. 445, 40
L. E. A. 754; St. Louis v. Laclede Gas-Light
Co., 96 Mo. 197, 9 S. W. 581, 9 Am. St. Rep.
334; McBeth v. Trabue, 69 Mo. 642; Hallett
f. Parker, 68 N. H. 598, 39 Atl. 433 ; Palmer
V. Palmer, 150 N. Y. 139, 44 K. E. 966, 55
Am. St. Eep. 653 ; Crippen v. Morss, 49 N. Y.
63; Ferson's Appeal, 96 Pa. St. 140; Jack-
son V. State Belt Electric St. E. Co., 7 North.
Co. Eep. (Pa.) 286; Daniels v. Almy, 18
E. I. 244, 27 Atl. 330; Charleston, etc., E.
Co. t: Leech, 33 S. C. 175, 11 S. E. 631, 26
Am. St. Eep. 667; Scott v. State, 1 Sneed
(Tenn.) 629; Mabie i". Matteson, 17 Wis. 1.
Compare Valentine v. Healey, 17-8 N. Y. 391,
70 N. E. 913 [reversing 77 N. Y. App.
Div. 635, 79 N. Y. Suppl. 1149]. Where a
cotenant's sole deed attempting to convey
timber on the common property was invalid
as to his cotenants, a provision of the deed
attempting to convey a right of way to and
from the timber, and a right to enter the land
to cut and remove logs, was also inoperative.
Lee V. Follensby, 83 Vt. 35, 74 Atl. 327. But
a claim to an easement of an elevated road
by prescription as against tenants in com-
mon is not defeated because of the infancy
of one of the tenants in common, on the
ground that the prescriptive right cannot be
given without the concurrence of all the ten-
ants in common, under the rule that a tenant
in common can for his part release the ease-
ments of light, air, and access, and transfer
that title to a railway in the street. Taggart
V. Manhattan E. Co., 57 Misc. (N. Y.) 184,
109 N. Y. Suppl. 38. A widow's conveyance
of a right of way over her husband's land
could not affect the interest of his children
as his heirs at law, her relation to the land
remaining that of tenant in common with
the children, her interest having imposed
upon it the easement coextensive with her
one-third interest. Foster f. Foster, 81 S. C.
307, 62 S. E. 320.
Repairs. — There is no implied authority in
one eotenant to improve or deal with the
common property at the expense of the other
tenants without their previous authority or
subsequent ratification, upon the principle
that no man has a right to improve the prop-
erty of another against his consent and
charge him with the expenses. Converse v.
Ferre, 11 Mass. 325; Taylor v. Baldwin, 10
Barb. (N. Y.) 582 [affirmed in 10 Barb. 626].
If such consent is unreasonably withheld, it
seems that a eotenant may repair the com-
mon property at the expense of all the own-
ers in common, if such repairs are necessary
for the preservation of the common property.
Taylor v. Baldwin, supra. And see supra,
in, E, 1. '^
Mortgage or lien.— The ownership in a
tenancy in common being in severalty, a mort-
gage or lien placed upon the interest of one
of the cotenants creates no lien upon the un-
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc.J 103
prevents them from binding each other applies with greater force after expiration
divided portions owned by the others of them;
they cannot thus interfere with each other's
interests. Torrey v. Cook, 116 Mass. 163;
Moreland v. Strong, 115 Mich. 211, 73 N. W.
140, 69 Am. St. Eep. 553; Porter v. Stone,
70 Miss. 291, 12 So. 208; Jolliffe v. Maxwell,
3 Nebr. (UnoflF.) 244, 91 N. W. 563; Stoddard
V. Weston, 3 Silv. Sup. (N. Y.) 13, 6 N. Y.
Suppl. 34. Thus where land is conveyed to
a woman and her infant children, she may
create a lien thereon affecting her interest,
but not the interests of the minors. Leavell
V. Carter, (Ky. 1908) 112 S. W. 1118. But
if the deed creating a cotenancy is not re-
corded until after the recording of a mort-
gage by the owner of record, it may be that
the mortgage is a lien upon the entire prop-
erty. Atkinson v. Hewett, 63 Wis. 396, 23
N. W. 889. The surrender of mortgaged
common property by one tenant in common
only surrenders his part thereof. Vermont
L. & T. Co. V. Cardin, 19 Wash. 304, 53 Pao.
164.
Pledge. — One tenant in common of a chat-
tel cannot pledge his cotenant's interest
without previous authority or subsequent
ratification. Frans v. Young, 24 Iowa 375.
A contract of sale by one cotenant dispos-
ing of his interest in mining lands does not
bind his cotenants to -accept a royalty re-
served to the vendor. Mercur v. State Line,
etc., E. Co., 171 Pa. St. 12, 32 Atl. 1126.
Sign boards. — A contract by a tenant in
common, giving permission to one to erect
sign and bill boards on the land, is not bind-
ing on the cotenants. Walker v. Marion, 143
Mich. 27, 106 N. W. 400.
Lien for materials. — On« tenant in com-
mon cannot without authority charge in-
terest of his cotenant with a lien for ma-
terials furnished for the improvement of the
common property. Van Eiper v. Morton, 61
Mo. App. 440.
License to enter. — A tenant in common can-
not give a license to enter, as against his co-
tenant. Moore v. Moore, (Cal. 1893) 34 Pac.
90. But a licensee of one tenant in com-
mon, for entry, may entitle the occupier
under such license to a notice to quit before
he is liable to any action for occupation
under said license, and the ejectment or
battery of such occupier by a tenant in com-
mon, without notice, may amount to a tort
for which such tenant in common may be
liable. Ord v. Chester, 18 Cal. 77; Mc-
Garrell v. Murphy, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 132;
Causee v. Anders, 20 N. C. 388; Taylor V.
Stockdale, 3 McCord (S. C.) 302, holding
that trespass to try the title will not lie.
If one having no interest in the common prop-
erty grants a permit in relation thereto, and
title to an interest therein is subsequently
cast upon such licensor by descent, the per-
mit so given is not binding upon the owners
of the other interests therein. Duke v. Pos-
tal Tel. Cable Co., 71 S. C. 95, 50 S. B.
675.
Mines and minerals. — A tenant in common
cainnot license a stranger to prosecute mining
on the common estate so as to bind a dissent-
ing cotenant, even though a statute declares
a license irrevocable after a valuable discov-
ery. Tipping V. Eobbins, 71 Wis. 507, 37
N. W. 427. Such a license extends only to
the licensor's interest (Omaha, etc.. Smelting,
etc., Co. V. Tabor, 13 Colo. 41, 21 Pac. 925,
16 Am. St. Eep. 185, 5 L. E. A. 236), and to
that extent only is valid (Williams v. Morri-
son, 28 Fed. 872 ) . A tenant in common may
not enter into any agreement in relation to
the mines that would unduly prejudice the
interests of his cotenants; he can only con-
vey or contract in relation to such interests as
he may own therein (McKinley v. Peters, 111
Pa. St. 283, 3 Atl. 27), and fraud of a tenant
in common or his agent cannot affect the
rights of the other cotenants in the premises
(Fisher v. Seymour, 23 Colo. 642, 49 Pac.
30; Yarwood v. Johnson, 29 Wash. 643, 70
Pao. 123).
Timber. — No license, by one cotenant alone,
to cut timber from land owned in common
passes the legal title to such timber to the
purchaser; the interest which he acquires can
only be asserted in equity (Burt, etc., Lum-
ber Co. V. Clay City Lumber Co., HI Ky. 725,
64 S. W. 652, 23 Ky. L. Eep. 1019; McDodrill
V. Pardee, etc.. Lumber Co., 40 W. Va. 564,
21 S. E. 878; Baker v. Whiting, 2 Fed. Cas.
No. 787, 3 Sumn. 475) unless the tenants in
common are partners in the premises (Baker
V. Wheeler, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 505, 24 Am.
Deo. 66 ) . The non-consenting cotenants may
maintain trover against the vendee or licensee.
Fleming v. Katahdin Pulp, etc., Co., 93 Me.
110, 44 Atl. 378; Sullivan v. Sherry, 111 Wis.
476, 87 N. W. 471, 87 Am. St. Eep. 890; Duff
V. Bindley, 16 Fed. 178. And see infra, IV, B,
1, c. And where one tenant in common with-
out authority sells all the timber on the land,
his cotenant is entitled to recover from him
and from purchasers with notice of the co-
tenancy his share of the value of the timber
taken. Collier v. Cameron, (Tex. Civ. App.
1909) 117 S. W. 915. But trespass quare
clausum fregit cannot be maintained. Wait
V. Eichardson, 33 Vt. 190, 78 Am. Dec. 622.
See also Hunting v. Eussell, 2 Cush. (Mass.)
145. A tenant in common authorizing a
licensee to cut timber on the common land,
without the consent of his cotenants, can
nevertheless maintain assumpsit for his share
against said licensee. Kenniston v. Ham, 29
N. H. 501. If a tenant in common licenses
a stranger to cut timber, and delivers it to
defendant, and subsequently sues jointly with
his cotenants for such conversion, the action
is properly nonsuited. Eamsey v. Brown,
(Pa.) 17 Atl. 207. A minor tenant in com-
mon cannot, without the assent of his coten-
ants, grant a license to enter and cut timber
from the common property. Eichey i: Brown,
58 Mich. 435, 25 N. W. 386. Where a part
of the cotenants license the cutting of tim-
ber by a third person, from the land owned
in common, neither the licensee acting under
said license nor those claiming under him
are in a position to claim adversely in the
[IV, A, 1]
104 [38 Cyc]
TENANCY IN COMMON
of the cotenancy." A contract by one tenant in common in relation to the
whole estate being voidable at the election of his cotenants not joining in said
contract." But the contracting cotenant may himself be bound.'* Even where
some previous authority or agency is conferred upon a tenant in common, his
acts must be strictly within the authority,'^ third persons dealing with a tenant
in common being bound at their peril to ascertain his authority to bind his
coowners." It appears, however, that where one of two tenants in common
of land directs some act to be done in relation thereto in reasonable appreciation
of imminent danger to the land and the act is accordingly done, the other tenant
in common cannot recover against the doer of said act in tort," and acts done
by one tenant in common in relation to the comroon interest are presumed to
have been done by authority or for the benefit of his cotenants, if there be any
circumstances upon which to base such a presumption.'*
2. Lease; Rescission or Surrender. A tenant in common not authorized
thereto by his cotenants cannot execute a lease that will bind them without
premises as against the tenants in common
not joining in such license. Oulf Red Cedar
Lumber (5>. f. Crenshaw, 148 Ala. 343, 42
So. 564.
Employment of a third person. — Evidence
that a tenant in common acting for himself
and his cotenant employed plaintiflF's services
is admissible to prove joint liability on the
part of said cotenants. Clifford v. Meyer,
6 Ind. App. 633, 34 N. E. 23.
72. Benoist v. Eothschild, 145 Mo. 399, 46
S. W. 1081; Stephens r. Ells, 65 Mo. 456.
See also Benjamin v. American Tel., etc., Co.,
196 Mass. 454, 82 N. E. 681.
73. Georgia. — Sewell v. Holland, 61 Ga.
608.
Missouri. — Benoist V. Eothschild, 145 Mo.
399, 46 S. W. 1081.
2few York,. — Knope v. Nunn, 151 N. Y. 506,
45 N. E. 940, 56 Am. St. Eep. 642.
Washington. — Vermont L. & T.' Co. v. Car-
din, 19 Wash. 304, 53 Pac. 164.
Wisconsin. — Martens v. O'Connor, 101 Wis.
18, 76 N. W. 774.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 119 e* seq.
Sedemption of land by payment to one of
several cotenants cannot avail as against the
other of them in the absence of previous au-
thority or subsequent ratification affirming
such payment. Maddox v. Bramlett, 84 Ga.
84, 11 S. E. 128.
Location of road. — One tenant in common
cannot bind the others by an agreement rela-
tive to th« location of a road over the com-
mon land or the assessment of damages in re-
lation thereto; nor can he apply for a jury
of condemnation without the joinder of his
cotenants in the application (Morrison v.
Clark, 89 Me. 103, 35 Atl. 1034, 56 Am. St.
Eep. 395; Merrill v. Berkshire, 11 Pick.
(Mass.) 269), nor can he accept a sum
awarded by commissioners in condemnation
so as to conclude his cotenants; they will
still remain entitled to compensation for their
respective interests (Euppert v. Chicago, etc.,
R. Co., 43 Iowa 490).
Presumptions of authority. — Although each
cotenant holds in severalty and holds his
separate property, except as modified by the
tenancy in common, as any other property
[IV. A, IJ
might be held, nevertheless certain presump-
tions and rules of law arise from the intimate
relationship between the coowners growing
out of the cotenancy and the nature of the
common property; therefore it is that where
one cotenant employs someone to do some
proper and necessary work on or in relation
to the common property it will be presumed,
when there is no showing to the contrary, that
said employment is by the consent of the
other cotenants or that such consent was ex-
pected, at the time of said employment, to
have been obtained. Barton v. Gray, 48 Mich.
164, 12 N. W. 30.
74. Baum v. McAfee, (Tex. Civ. App. 1910)
125 S. W. 984.
75. Gillham v. Walker, 135 Ala. 459, 33
So. 537, holding that authority to a tenant
in common by his cotenants to deliver a deed
does not warrant him in entering into a con-
tract with the vendee therein to perform
certain acts extraneous to the deed.
Notice revoking an agency in a cotenant for
the collection of rents and their application
to the satisfaction of an encumbrance, to-
gether with the filing of a bill by the notifier
for an accounting for rents and profits, was
held sufficient to revoke such authority, even
though such notice purported to revoke a
non-executed power of attorney. Switzer v.
Switzer, 57 N. J. Eq. 421, 41 Atl. 486.
76. Breaux v. Albert Hanson Lumber Co.,
125 La. 421, 51 So. 444.
77. Crary v. Campbell, 24 Cal. 634.
78. Schwartz v. McQuaid, 214 111. 357, 73
N. E. 582, 105 Am. St. Eep. 112 (lease by
one tenant in common of the whole property
without objection by his cotenant, for several
months) ; Valentine v. Healey, 1 N. Y. App.
Div. 502, 37 N. Y. Suppl. 287 [reversed on
other grounds in 158 N. Y. 369, 52 N. E.
1097, 43 L. E. A. 667] ; Lagorio v. Dozier, 91
Va. 492, 22 S. E. 239 (receipt of profits and
payment of taxes).
Thus an entry upon land owned in common,
under a license from one of the cotenants,
will be presumed to be under the cotenancy
and not adTferse thereto. Berthold v. Fox,
13 Minn. 501, 97 Am. Dec. 243. But pre-
sumption of adverse holding may arise where
the entry is under claim of the whole prop-
TENANCY IN COMMON [SSCye] 105
subsequent ratification," even though the tenant in common attempting so to
lease is in possession of the whole land;'" nor can he bind his cotenants by a sur-
render of a lease without their authority; *' and any number of the cotenants
less than the whole of them are incompetent to bind their non-rescinding cotenants
by the rescission of a lease.^^ A tenant in common may, however, let his own
share of the common property, and the lessee on entry will have the same right
in relation to the other cotenants that his lessor had; *^ and where there has been
no objection by the cotenants not executing the lease to the occupancy by the
lessee of the one who executed it, and his cotenants knew of such occupancy
and made no objection to such lease and directed the lessee to enter and hold
possession and pay rent for several months, the knowledge and consent of the
coowners will be presumed.^'' Payment of rent to one cotenant is a defense
to a claim therefor by another of them who has ratified the demise. ^^ A sealed
lease signed by a cotenant for himself and as agent of his cotenants is not void,
and the lessee taking possession thereunder is liable on his covenant for rent.*'
If one cotenant executes a lease purporting to cover the whole of the common
property, containing a clause for the payment of certain damages in the event
of the non-use of the property according to the terms of the lease, and subsequently
an accounting is demanded for rents and profits, any sums so paid for non-use
under the terms of said lease do not constitute part of the damages or part of the
rents and profits, in the absence of ratification of the lease by the cotenants claim-
ing the benefit of the accounting. '^
3. Release or Settlement. Upon the question of. the effect of a release by
one tenant in common upon the rights of a cotenant, the cases are not in harmony.
Thus it is held that whUe, from the bare relation of cotenancy, the law does not
imply authority of one of the cotenants to bind the other to his prejudice,*' when-
ever the cause of action existing in favor of any number of cotenants is joint the
release of one bars an action by the others,*" and that one tenant in common can
settle or release the claim of all tenants in common for trespass upon the common
erty. Gill v. Fauntleroy, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 83. California. — Crary «;. Campbell, 24 Cal.
177. 634.
79. Tainter v. Cole, 120 Mass. 162; Lee v. Massachusetts. — Rawson v. Morse, 4 Pick.
Livingston, 143 Mich. 203, 106 N. W. 713; 127; Keay f. Goodwin, 16 Mass. 1.
Mussey v. Holt, 24 N. H. 248, 55 Am. Dec. Mmraesoto.— Berthold v. Fox, 13 Minn.
234; King v. Wilson, 54 N. J. Eq. 247, 34 501, 97 Am. Dec. 243.
Atl. 394. Pennsylvania. — Hayden v. Patterson, 51
Repiesentatives of a deceased copartner, Pa. St. 261.
being tenants in common with his survivor, Wisconsin. — Tipping v. Eobbins, 71 Wis.
are not bound merely by said survivor's lease. 507, 37 N. W. 427.
Un Wong V. Kan Chu, 5 Hawaii 225. See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
A husband and wife owning part of a tract mon," § 123. «
as community property and the remainder 84. Schwartz v. McQuaid, 214 111. .357, 73
thereof as community property in common N. E. 582, 105 Am. St. Rep. 112; Stuart v.
with another, the executing of a lease by the Mattern, 141 Mich. 686, 105 N. W. 35.
husband without the concurrence of his wife 85. Phelps v. Conant, 30 Vt. 277.
or the other cotenant was held to be invalid. But a claim under a bill for discovery and
Snyder v. Harding, 34 Wash. 286, 75 Pac. an accounting, expressly denying the title of
812. defendant and the validity of a lease executed
An oil and gas lease made by a tenant in by him, for rentals received by virtue of an
common to a stranger is void as against his agreement in said lease, does not . amount to
cotenants. But it is valid as between the a ratification of said lease by plaintiff en-
parties even while the premises remain un- titling him to share in the benefit thereof,
divided. Zeigler v. Brenneman, 237 HI. 15, McNeely v. South Penn Oil Co., 58 W. Va.
86 N. E. 597. 438, 52 S. E. 480.
80. Moreland v. Strong, 115 Mich. 211, 73 86. Harms v. McCormick, 132 HI. 104, 22
N. W. 140, 69 Am. St. Rep. 553. But see N. E. 511.
Foster f. Magee, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 182. 87. McNeely v. South Penn Oil Co., 58
81. Edmonds v. Mounsey, 15 Ind. App. 399, W. Va. 438, 52 S. E. 480.
44 N. E. 196. 88. Churchill v. Lammers, 60 Mo. App.
82. Augusta Nat. Bank i: Bones, 75 6a. 244. And see supra, note 71.
246. But see Hooks v. Forst, 165 Pa. St. 89. Churchill v. Lammers, 60 Mo. App.
238, 30 Atl. 846. 244.
[IV, A, 3]
106 [38 CycJ TENANCY IN COMMON-
property/" and that thus, where cotenants join in an action ex delicto for trespass
committed upon the common property, a release by one tenant in common from
all liability for the trespass, as well for his cotenant as for himself, such settlement
and release binds both tenants in common. °' On the other hand the rule is laid
down that the ownership of the several interests are so far distinct that, after
suit instituted, one cotenant can neither settle the action nor execute a jelease
without the previous authority or the subsequent ratification of his cotenants,
so as to prevent them from proceeding with the suit, or as in anywise to bind
them or their respective rights, although of course the recovery in such a suit
must be limited to the extent of the right of the parties entitled to maintain it.°^
Thus it is held that liability for trespass on land cannot be avoided by showing
payment in settlement therefor to one tenant in common of the land without
the knowledge or consent of his cotenants; '^ and one tenant in common may
maintain trespass for cutting and carrying away timber from the common prop-
erty, although the wrong-doer has paid the other tenants in common; ^* and a
release and settlement of damages for trespass on land executed by one of the
cotenants does not bar the others; °^ and where two tenants in common of chattels
join in an action for the conversion of the property, one cannot release or settle
the action so as to deprive his cotenant of his remedy ;°° but the action may
proceed in the name of both for the benefit of the one not releasing, or an amend-
ment can be made by striking out the name of the one releasing."' Where one
cotenant brings a suit for his portion of the damage sustained by the common
property, the release of the other tenant is no discharge. °* If a tenant in common
releases an insurer of the common property on receipt of- his share of the loss, his
cotenant may either recover from him the fxill amount of such cotenant's loss,
in the proportion of the insurance to the loss, or he may adopt the adjustment
and sue in assumpsit for his share of the money had and received."
4. Notice to One Cotenant as Notice to All. Ordinarily notice to one cotenant
in relation to the title is not binding on his fellows therein.^ But where they are
jointly pursuing a common enterprise as tenants in common notice to one, in
the premises, is notice to all; so, where one of them is acting as agent for his
fellows, notice to such agent, in the premises, is notice to them.^
5. Estoppel and Satification. Tenants in common, being owners of several
interests, may ratify the acts of each other or acquiesce therein; and generally
such ratification or acquiescence with full knowledge of material facts is effective; '
90. Hodges v. Heal, 80 Me. 281, 14 Atl. 11, 601, 9 L. R. A. 584 (acquiescence in a volun-
6 Am. St. Eep. 199 tary partition by quitclaim deed) ; Primm v.
■91. Bradley v. Boynton, 22 Me. 287, 39 Walker, 38 Mo. 94 (acquiescence in the di-
Am. Dec. 582; Decker v. Livingston, 15 vision of a larger tract into many smaller
Johns (N. Y.) 479; Austin v. Hall, 13 lots); Streeter v. Shultz, 45 Hun (N. Y.)
Johns. (N. Y.) 286, 7 Am. Dec. 376. 406 la/firmed in 127 N. Y. 652, 27 N. E.
92. Jackson r. Moore, 94 N. Y. App. Div. 857] (acquiescence in the purchase of an
504, 87 N. Y. Suppl. 1101. outstanding title for the sole benefit of the
93. Wagoner v. Silva, 139 Cal. 559, 73 purchaser) ; Whitehead v. Seanor, 197 Pa. St.
Pac. 433. 511, 47 Atl. 978 (conduct amounting to a
94. Longfellow v. Quimby, 29 Me. 196, 48 waiver of the benefit of an adjudication and
Am. Dec. 525. the recognition of a cotenancy).
95. Gillum v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 4 Confirming or ratifying unauthorized con-
Tex. Civ. App. 622, 23 S. W. 716; Tallman veyance see Johnston v. Jones, 85 Ala. 286,
V. Barnes, 54 Wis. 181, 11 N. W. 478. 4 So. 748; Eyason v. Dunten, 164 Ind. 85 73
96. Gock V. Keneda, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 120. N. E. 74; Johnson v. Stevens, 7 Cush. (Mass.)
97. Grock V. Keneda, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 431; Dall v. Brown, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 239;
120. Stuart v. Mattern, 141 Mich. 686, 105 N. w'
98. Wilson v. Gamble, 9 N. H. 74. 35 ; Nalle f. Parks, 173 Mo. 616 73 S W
99. Briggs f. Call, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 504. 596; Nalle t: Thompson, 173 Mo 595 73
1. Wiswall V. McGown, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) S. W. 599; Wheeler v. Taylor, 32 Ores '42I
270 [affirmed in 10 N. Y. 465]; Parker v. 52 Pac. 183, 67 Am. St. Eep. 540- Pheins v
Kane, 4 Wis. 1, 65 Am. Dec. 283. Conant, 30 Vt. 277.
2. NefF V. Elder, 84 Ark. 277, 105 S. W. Acquiescence in a conveyance by metes and
260; Ward v. Warren, 82 >f. Y. 265. bounds see Currens r. Lauderdale 118 Tenn
3. Davidson f. Coon, 125 Ind. 497, 25 N. E. 496, 101 S. W. 431. See also Davidson a'
[IV, A, 3]
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 107.
and after such ratification or acquiescence the ratifying parties and their respective
grantees are estopped from denying the effect thereof.* A tenant in common is
estopped from nullifying a material act in relation to the common property of
which he has accepted and retained the benefit, with full knowledge of all material
circumstances in relation thereto, or which he has ratified or in which he has
acquiesced; and so is his grantee or licensee; ^ and he may be estopped if he has
advised or urged such act." But mere absence for a long time,' or the use of the
name of a tenant in common as party in a suit concerning the common property,
without such tenant's knowledge or authority, is not sufficient to estop him from
asserting his interest in the land; ' nor is he estopped by unauthorized declara-
tions or acts of his cotenants; ° and a cotenant is not ordinarily estopped because
of an alleged fraud, which failed of results.^" A tenant in common is not estopped,
in the absence of fraud, from insisting upon his rights as such because of mere
silence on his part, unless there was a legal duty upon him to speak or act in the
premises and such silence caused injury to the party seeking the benefit of an
estoppel as against him; '^ nor is he estopped from avoiding a sheriff's deed
to his cotenant by accepting a part of the purchase-money, in the absence of
a fair disclosure of surrounding circumstances by said purchasing cotenant. ^^
An estoppel operating against one tenant in common in relation to the common
property may be defeated by an assertion of the rights of his non-estopped
cotenants."
Coon, 125 Ind. 497, 25 N B. 601, 9 L. E. A.
584.
A bill for discovery and an accounting for
rentals under an unauthorized lease and ex-
pressly denying the title of the lessor and
the validity of the lease does not amount to
a ratification thereof. McNeely i". South
Penn Oil Co., 58 W. Va. 438, 52 S. E. 480.
4. California. — Mandeville v. Solomon, 39
Cal. 125.
Connecticut. — Goodwin v. Keney, 49 Conn.
563; Oviatt v. Sage, 7 Conn 95.
Indiana. — Eyason v, Dunten, 164 Ind. 85,
73 N. E. 74.
Missouri. — 'Potter f. Herring, 57 Mo. 184;
Warfield V. Lindell, 38 Mo. 561, 90 Am. Dec.
443.
Pennsylva/nia. — Lancaster v. Flowers, 208
Pa. St. 199, 57 Atl. 526 ; Workman v. Guthrie,
29 Pa. St. 495, 72 Am. Dec. 654.
5. Indiana. — Jennings v. Moon, 135 Ind.
168, 34 N. E. 996.
Maryland. — Jones v. Rose, 96 Md. 483, 54
Atl 69.
Missouri. — Nalle v. Thompson, 173 Mo.
595, 73 S. W. 599.
Vew York. — Beecher v. Bennett, 11 Barb.
374; Cornell v. Prescott, 2 Barb. 16; Ten
Eick V. Simpson, 1 Sandf. Ch. 244.
Pennsylvania. — Ramsey v. Brown, (1889)
17 Atl. 207; Thompson's Appeal, 101 Pa. St.
225; Ferson's Appeal, 96 Pa. St. 140.
Tennessee. — Currens v. Lauderdale, 118
Tenn. 496, 101 S. W. 431.
Texas.— Trammell v. McDade, 29 Tex. 360;
McKey v. Welch, 22 Tex. 390.
Vermont. — Phelps v. Conant, 30 Vt. 277.
One acting under a deed conveying prop-
erty in common is estopped from denying the
title of his cotenant and claiming the whole
land by title paramount. Funk v. Newcomer,
10 Md. 301.
6. Crownover v. Eandle, 21 La. Ann. 469.
7. Tice V. Derby, 59 Iowa 312, 13 N. W.
301.
8. Keaton v. Pennington, 11 S. W. 198, 10
Ky. L. Eep. 931.
9. Iowa. — Euppert v. Chicago, etc., E. Co.,
43 Iowa 490.
North Carolina. — Lenoir v. Valley Eiver
Min. Co., 106 N. C. 473, 11 S. E. 516.
Permsylvania. — Person's Appeal, 96 Pa. St.
140.
Rhode Island. — Dexter Lime-Eock Co. v.
Dexter, 6 E. I. 353.
West Virginia. — McNeely v. South Penn
Oil Co., 58 W. Va. 438, 52 S. E. 480.
Recitals in deeds see Gordon v. San Diego,
101 Cal. 522, 36 Pac. 18, 40 Am. St. Eep. 73,
32 Pac. 885 ; Frost 1\ Courtis, 172 Mass. 401,
52 N. E. 515; Thomason v. Dayton, 40 Ohio
St. 63; Woods v. Early, 95 Va. 307, 28 S. E.
374.
10. Richards f. Eichards, 31 Pa. Super. Ct.
509.
11. Mora f. Murphy, 83 Cal. 12, 23 Pac.
63; Cooper v. Brown, 143 Iowa 482, 122
N. W. 144; Van Ormer v. Harley, 102 Iowa
150, 71 N. W. 241; King v. Eeehling, 1
Dauph. Co. Eep. (Pa.) 137.
Withdrawing from the common property
under a mistake as to the title thereof see
Davenport k. Turpin, 43 Cal. 597.
Standing by whilst cotenant or his licensee
made improvements see Sanford v. Tucker,
54 Ind. 219.
Failing to object to an unlawful convey-
ance by cotenant see Truth Lodge No. 213
A. F. & A. M. V. Barton, 119 Iowa 230, 93
N. W. 106, 97 Am. St. Eep. 303; Great Falls
Co. v. Worster, 15 N. H. 412; Newman v.
Newman, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 714.
12. Tanney v. Tanney, 24 Pittsb. Leg. J.
N. S. (Pa.) 43 [affirmed in 159 Pa. St. 277,
28 Atl. 287, 39 Am. St. Eep. 678].
13. Mabie v. Matteson, 17 Wis. 1.
[IV, A, 5]
108 [38 Cye.J
TENANCY IN COMMON
6. Joint Contracts; Leases. Tenants in common may bind themselves jointly
concerning the common property." At common law tenants in common, their
rights and title being several, could not make a joint lease, and must in ejectment
declare on their several leases of their several parts; '^ but cotenants may now
let jointly, and where the letting is joint, one cotenant can demand and receive
the whole rent."
B. Sale or Conveyance — 1. By One Cotenant of More Than His Share —
a. Rule Stated. One tenant in common cannot, unless specially authorized to
do so, sell or dispose of more than his own interest," nor can a tenant in common
14. Cliflford v. Meyer, (Ind. App. 1893) 33
N. E. 127, 6 Ind. App. 633, 34 N. E. 23 ; Wil-
kinson t" . Fleming, 2 Ohio 301 ; Massie v.
Long, 2 Ohio 287, 15 Am. Dec. 547.
15. Wilkinson i. Hall, 1 Bing. N. Cas. 713,
1 Hodges 170, 6 L. J. C. P. 82, 1 Scott 675,
27 E. C. L. 831; Haysman t. Moon, 7 Mod.
430, 87 Eng. Reprint 1337; Burne v. Cam-
bridge, 1 M. & Rob. 53'9; Heatherley v. Wes-
ton, 2 Wils. C. P. 232, 95 Eng. Reprint 783.
See also Doe r. Errington, 1 A. & E. 750, 3
L. J. K. B. 215, 3 N. & M. 646, 28 E. C. L.
349, 110 Eng. Reprint 1394; Midgley v. Love-
lace, Garth. 289, 90 Eng. Reprint 771; Wal-
lace r. McLaren, 1 M. & R. 516, 31 Rev. Rep.
334, 17 E. C. L. 685.
16. Codman v. Hall, 9 Allen (Mass.) 335;
Miner v. Lorman, 70 Mich. 173, 38 N. W.
18; Griffin v. Clark, 33 Barb. (N. Y.) 46;
Sherman v. Ballon, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 304;
Decker r. Livingston, 15 Johns. (N. Y.)
479.
17. Hewlett v. Owens, 51 Cal. 570; Flem-
ing z. Katahdin Pulp, etc., Co., 93 Me. 110,
44 Atl. 378; Kemper v. Ewing, 25 Gratt.
(Va.) 427; Wiggins r. White, 2 N. Brunsw.
97. Compare Watson v. Union Red, etc.,
Gravel Co., 50 Mo. App. 635.
If merely employed to manage the common
property, a cotenant cannot sell the whole
thereof. Strickland f. Parker, 54 Me. 263;
Watson t. Union Red, etc.. Gravel Co., 50
Mo. App. 635.
He cannot employ an agent to sell the
whole property. Lipscomb v. Watrous, 3 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 1.
A cotenant cannot without authority sell
the right to cut logs from the land owned in
common so as to pass the legal title to the
purchaser, and the interest which the pur-
chaser acquires can be asserted only in equity.
Burt, etc., Lumber Co. v. Clay City Lumber
Co., Ill Ky. 725, 64 S. W. 652, 23 Ky. L.
Rep. 1019.
One coparcener cannot convey severally,
they must all join. Leyman l'. Abeel, 16
Johns. (N. Y.) 30.
If the purchaser holds adversely, the other
cotenants may bring ejectment against him
for their respective parte, or may affirm the
sale and sue the vendor in assumpsit for their
respective parts of the purchase-money. Mur-
ley V. Ennis, 2 Colo. 300.
A tenant in common of a chattel cannot
lawfully sell more than his own interest
therein. People f. Marshall, 8 Cal. 51; Car-
ter v. Bailey, 64 Me. 458, 18 Am. Rep. 273;
Kilgore v. Wood, 56 Me. 150, 96 Am. Dec.
[IV, A, 6]
404; Dain ;;. Cowing, 22 Me. 347, 39 Am.
Dec. 585; Weld t. Oliver, 21 Pick. (Mass.)
559; Sharp v. Benoist, 7 Mo. App. 534; White
v. Osborn, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 72; Farr v.
Smith, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 338, 24 Am. Dec.
162; Hyde v. Stone, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 230, 18
Am. Dec. 501; Wilson v. Reed, 3 Johns.
(N. Y.) 175; Logan r. Oklahoma Mill Co.,
14 Okla. 402, 79 Pac. 103; Newman f. New-
man, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 714; Barton v. Wil-
liams, 5 B. & Aid. 395, 7 E. C. L. 219, 106
Eng. Reprint 1235; Mayhew v. Herrick, 7
C. B. 229, 13 Jur. 1078, 18 L. J. C. P. 179,
62 E. C. L. 229; Farrar v. Beswick, 5 L. J.
Exeh. 225, 1 M. & W. 685, Tyrw. & 6. 1053;
Mason r. Norris, 18 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 500.
Therefore the buyer may refuse to receive
property so sold for lack of title in the
seller. Xevels r. Kentucky Lumber Co., 108
Ky. 550, 56 S. W. 969, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 247, 94
Am. St. Rep. 388, 49 L. R. A. 416. But so
long as waste is not committed a tenant in
common may sell marketable timber growing
on the land, the purchaser taking a good
title; the remedy of the other cotenants, if
any, being an accounting at law or in equity.
Gillum V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 5 Tex. Civ.
App. 338, 23 S. W. 717.
Timber. — A tenant in common in a tract
of timber land has no right to sell more than
his interest therein, and if he does so the
buyer takes subject to the right of the other
cotenants to partition. Nevels v. Kentucky
Lumber Co., 108 Ky. 550, 56 S. W. 969, 22
Ky. L. Rep; 247, 49 L. R. A. 416, 94 Am.
St. Kep. 388; Hunter v. Hodgson, (Tex. Civ.
App. 1906) 95 S. W. 637; McDodrill r. Par-
dee, etc., Lumber Co., 40 W. Va. 564, 21
S. E. 878; Allen v. Anthony, 1 Meriv. 282,
15 Rev. Rep. 113, 35 Eng. Reprint 679. He
may not cut and sell logs from the land
without the consent of his cotenants, so as
to divest them of their interest (Nevels v.
Kentucky Lumber Co., 108 Ky. 550, 56 S. W.
969, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 247, 94 Am. St. Rep. 388,
49 L. R. A. 416; State v. Judge Fourth Judi-
cial Dist. Ct., 52 La. Ann. 103, 26 So. 769),
nor convey his undivided interest in timber
on the common property so as to injuriously
aflfect the rights of his cotenants (Gillum v.
St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App. 338,
23 S. W. 717). Where one of several coten-
ants cuts and removes timber under an alleged
license from his cotenants, the burden is on
him to show that said license was uncondi-
tional and not limited by the reservation 'of
a lien on the lumber. Prentiss v. Roberts, 49
Me. 127. That defendant was servant of an
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 109
bar or postpone the rights of his cotenants by such conveyance or act in pais,^^
particularly where he is acting in fraud of the rights of his cotenants; ^^ and a
sale, conveyance of, or covenant to convey property held in common, by the
deed of one tenant in common, whatever it may purport to convey, can have
no effect upon the title and interest of his cotenants in the absence of prior author-
ity or subsequent ratification, express or implied, and it carries only the undivided
interest of the grantor, whatever the description.^" But if a tenant in common
occupying tenant in common was no defense
in a suit under a statute for cutting and
carrying away wood without notice to the
cotenants therein (Hazen v. Wight, 87 Me.
233, 32 Atl. 887 ) ; and the right of action of
one cotenant against the other for cutting
timber on the common property is not af-
fected by the fact that the complaining party
has theretofore been guilty of a like offense
(Blake v. Milliken, 14 N. H. 213) ; nor does
the acceptance by a cotenant of his propor-
tion of the price of a sale of timber show
that such sale was authorized by him (Dwin-
ell V. Larrabee, 38 Me. 464). There is no
necessity of an allegation in the declaration,
of the kind of trees that have been cut, and
if such an allegation be made there is no
necessity of offering evidence to sustain it.
Maxwell v. Maxwell, 31 Me. 184, 50 Am. Dec.
657.
Water rights. — A cotenant, in the absence
of special authority, cannot transfer any
'greater interest in an appropriation of water
for irrigating purposes, appurtenant to the
estate, than is commensurate to his own
interest. Crary v. Campbell, 24 Cal. 634;
Forrest Milling Co. v. Cedar Falls Mill Co.,
103 Iowa 619, 72 N. W. 1076; Beers V.
Sharpe, 44 Oreg. 386, 75 Pac. 717.
A grantee of a tenant in common of land
cannot maintain ejectment against his grant-
or's cotenants, they having recognized each
other's possession. Wittenbrock v. Wheadon,
128 Cal. 150, 60 Pac. 664, 79- Am. St. Kep.
32 (holding that a purchaser of the land
from one tenant in common cannot, merely
because of such purchase, eject the cotenants
therein who had not joined in the deed) ;
Tansman v. Faris, 59 Cal. 663.
18. California. — Gates v. Salmon, 35 Cal.
576, 95 Am. Dec. 139.
Connecticut. — Griswold v. Johnson, 5 Conn.
363.
Illinois.— Stookey v. Carter, 92 111. 129.
Massachusetts. — Rising v. Stannard, 17
Mass. 282; Baldwin v. Whiting, 13 Mass.
57; Varuum v. Abbot, 12 Mass. 474, 7 Am.
Dec. 87; Bartlet v. Harlow, 12 Mass. 348, 7
Am. Dec. 76; Porter v. Hill, 9 Mass. 34, 6
Am. Deo. 22.
Michigan. — 'Petit v. Flint, etc., K. Co., 114
Mich. 362, 72 N. W. 238.
Nevada. — Hoopes v. Meyer, 1 Nev. 433.
Nem Hampshire. — Great Falls Co. v. Wors-
ter, 15 N. H. 412 ; Jeffers v. Radcliff, 10 N. H.
242.
New Jersey. — Boston Franklinite Co. V.
Condit, 1« N. J. Eq. 394.
Pennsylvania. — McKinley v. Peters, 111 Pa.
St. 283, 3 Atl. 27; Coursin's Appeal, 79 Pa.
St. 220.
Tennessee. — Jewett v. Stockton, 3 Yerg.
492, 24 Am. Dec. 594.
Texas. — Good v. Coombs, 28 Tex. 34; Mc-
Key V. Welch, 22 Tex. 390.
Wisconsin. — Smith v. Clarke, 7 Wis. 551.
Canada. — McLellan v. McDougall, 28 Nova
Scotia 237.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 130 e« seq.
Upon delivery of a deed of the common
land by one cotenant and purchase-money
bond and mortgage taken in his own name
his cotenants may recover their share of the
purchase-price from him even though the
bond has not been paid. Knope v. Nunn, 81
Hun (N. Y.) 349, 30 N. Y. Suppl. 896
[affirmed in 151 N. Y. 506, 45 N. E. 940, 56
Am. St. Kep. 642].
19. Small V. Eobinson, 9 Hun (N. Y.) 418.
The defrauded cotenant is entitled to a pro
rata share of the profits thus received. Garr
V. Boswell, 38 S. W. 513, 18 Ky. L. Kep.
814.
20. California. — Gordon v. San Diego, 101
Cal. 522, 36 Pac. 18, 40 Am. St. Kep. 73,
(1893) 32 Pac. 885.
Colorado.— Gillett v. Gaffney, 3 Colo. 35.
Connecticut. — Adams v. Manning, 51 Conn.
5; Mitchell v. Hazen, 4 Conn. 495, 10 Am.
Dec. 169.
Georgia. — Sewell v. Holland, 61 Ga. 608.
lowa.— Tice v. Derby, 59 Iowa 312, 13
N. W. 301.
Kentucky. — Burt, etc., Lumber Co. v. Clay
City Lumber Co., Ill Ky. 725, 64 S. W. 652,
23 Ky. L. Kep. 1019; Chiles v. Jones, 7
Dana 528. See Daniel v. Bratton, 1 Dana
209.
Louisiana. — Crownover v. Randle, 21 La.
Ann. 469.
Maine. — Fleming v. Katahdin Pulp, etc.,
Co., 93 Me. 110, 44 Atl. 378; Moore v. Gib-
son, 53 Me. 551.
Massachusetts. — Marks v. Sewall, 120
Mass. 174; Tainter v. Cole, 120 Mass. 162;
Matthews v. Bliss, 22 Pick. 48.
Michigan. — Wright v. Kaynor, 150 Mich.
7, 113 N. W. 779; Dumas v. Geer, 144 Mich.
377, 108 N. W. 84; Moreland v. Strong, 115
Mich. 211, 73 N. W. 140, 69 Am. St. Rep.
553; Palmer v. Williams, 24 Mich. 328, hold-
ing that an owner of real property in com-
mon with others, but in whose name the
title to the whole has been put, and who
holds as trustee for all parties, has no au-
thority to sell without their knowledge and
consent.
Minnesota. — Lovcridge v. Coles, 72 Minn.
57, 74 N. W. 1109.
Missouri. — Childs v. Kansas City, etc., R.
Co., (1891) 17 S. W. 954.
[IV, B, l,a]
110 [38 Cye.]
TENANCY IN COMMON
is duly authorized to sell the entire common property, and he makes a contract
of sale, then his cotenants and their grantees with notice are bound thereby; ^'
and even an unauthorized lease or conveyance of an interest in land by a tenant
in common is good as against himself and those claiming under him and is voidable
at the election of his cotenants and those claiming under them, only in so far as
it operates to their prejudice, being valid against everyone unless so avoided.^^
'Nebraska. — Jackson v. O'Korke, 71 Nebr.
418, 98 N. W. 1068; JoUiffe r. Maxwell, 3
Nebr. (Unoff.) 244, 91 N. W. 563.
New Hampshire. — White v. Brooks, 43
N. H. 402.
New Forfc.— Partridge v. Eaton, 63 N. Y.
482; Edwards v. Bishop, 4 N. Y. 61; Sher-
man Lime Co. v. Glens Falls, 42 Misc. 440,
87 N. Y. Suppl. 95 [reversed on other grounds
in 101 N. Y. App. Div. 269, 91 N. Y. S-uppl.
994] ; Cuyler v. Bradt, 2 Cai. Cas. 326 ; Ten
Eick V. Simpson, 1 Sandf. Ch. 244.
North Carolina. — See Locke v. Alexander,
9 N. C. 155, 11 Am. Dec. 750.
Pennsylvania. — Browning v. Cover, 108
Pa. St. 595; Keisel v. Earnest, 21 Pa. St. 90.
Philippine. — Lopez ;;. Ilustre, 5 Philip-
pine 567.
South Carolina. — Coleman r. Coleman, 71
S. C. 518, 51 S. E. 250; Duke v. Postal Tel.
Cable Co., 71 S. C. 95, 50 S. E. 675; Charles-
ton, etc., R. Co. V. Leech, 33 S. C. 175, 11
S. E. 631, 26 Am. St. Eep. 667.
Tennessee. — Currens v. Lauderdale, 118
Tenn. 496, 101 S. W. 431.
Texas. — Hunter v. Hodgson, (Civ. App.
1906) 95 S. W. 637; Broom v. Pearson,
(Civ. App. 1904) 81 S. W. 753 [modified in
98 Tex. 469, 85 S. W. 790, 86 S. W. 733].
Utah. — Manti City Sav. Bank v. Peterson,
33 Utah 209, 93 Pac. 566, 126 Am. St. Eep.
817.
Vermont.— Bigelow v. Topliff, 25 Vt. 273,
60 Am. Dec. 264.
Virginia. — Woods v. Early, 95 Va. 307, 28
S. E. 374; Kemper v. Ewing, 25 Gratt. 427.
West Virginia. — Parker v. Brast, 45 W.
Va. 399, 32 S. E. 269.
England. — Heath v. Hubbard, 4 East 101,
4 Esp. 205, 102 Eng. Eeprint 771.
Canada. — Shaw v. Grant, 2 N. Brunsw.
196; Wiggins v. White, 2 N. Brunsw. 179;
Mcintosh V. Ontario Bank, 19 Grant Ch.
(U. C.) 155.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 130 et seq.
A lease by one tenant in common of the
right to take oysters without the consent of
his cotenant does not give the lessee an ex-
clusive right as against subsequent lessees of
the cotenant; and it is immaterial that the
first lessee expended money and labor in
making the bed productive. Mott v. Under-
wood, 78 Hun (N. Y.) 509, 26 N. Y. Suppl.
307 [affirmed in 148 N. Y. 463, 42 N. E. 1048,
51 Am. St. Rep. 711, 32 L. R. A. 270].
A cotenant selling the whole tract of land
without authority from his coiiwners is not
a trustee for his cotenants for their share of
the purchase-money, as the legal title of the
cotenants not assenting to the sale remains
in the land, and they have their remedy at
law. Milton v. Hogue, 39 N. C. 415.
[IV, B, 1, a]
21. Michenor r. Reinach, 49 La. Ann. 360,
21 So. 552; Cline i: Stradlee, (Tenn. Ch.
App. 1898) 48 S. W. 272 (sale by cotenant
and repurchase for himself) ; Cecil v. Clark,
49 W. Va. 459, 39 S. E. 202; McWhinne v.
Martin, 77 Wis. 182, 46 N. W. 118.
A third person with notice taking title to
said property holds as a trustee for the for-
mer vendee. Lesslie v. Worthington, Wright
(Ohio) 628.
Authority to sell cannot be proven by
declarations of the alleged agent made in
the absence of the principal alleged to be
bound. Lipscomb v. Watrous, 3 App. Cas.
(D. C.) 1.
23. California. — Wittenbrock v. Wheadon,
128 Cal. 150, 60 Pac. 664, 79 Am. St. Eep. 32;
Hager r. Spect, 52 Cal. 579 ; Stark v. Barrett,
15 Cal. 361.
Kentucky. — Nevels v. Kentucky Lumber
Co., 108 Ky. 550, 56 S. W. 969, 22 Ky. L.
Rep. 247, 94 Am. St. Rep. 388, 49 L. E. A.
416; Ballentine v. Joplin, 105 Ky. 70, 48
S. W. 417, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1062.
Massachusetts. — Kimball v. Common- "
wealth Ave. St. R. Co., 173 Mass. 152, 53
N. E. 274; Frost v. Courtis, 172 Mass. 401, 52
N. E. 515; Nichols 17. Smith, 22 Pick. 316;
De Witt V. Harvey, 4 Gray 486; Johnson r.
Stevens, 7 Cush. 431 ; Varnum v. Abbot, 12
Mass. 474, 7 Am. Dec. 87.
Michigan. — Moreland i: Strong, 115 Mich.
211, 73 N. W. 140, 69 Am. St. Rep. 553;
Benedict v. Torrent, 83 Mich. 181, 47 N. W.
129, 21 Am. St. Eep. 589, 11 L. E. A. 278;
Eichey i,. Brown, 58 Mich. 435, 25 N. W.
386; Campau v. Godfrey, 18 Mich. 27, 100
Am. Dec. 133.
Mississippi. — Kenoye v. Brown, 82 Miss.
607, 35 So. 163, 100 Am. St. Rep. 645.
Missouri. — Benoist v. Rothschild, 145 Mo.
399, 46 S. W. 1081 ; Primm r. Walker, 38 Mo.
94.
New Hampshire. — Hallett v. Parker, 68
N. K. 598, 39 Atl. 433 ; Whitton v. Whitton,
38 N. H. 127, 75 Am. Dec. 163.
New Jersey. — Boston Franklinite Co. v.
Condit, 19 N. J. Eq. 394; Holcomb v. Coryell,
11 N. J. Eq. 548.
Pennsylvania. — McKinley v. Peters, 111
Pa. St. 283, 3 Atl. 27.
Rhode Island. — Crocker v. Tiffany, 9 R. I
505.
Texas.— Wade v. Boyd, 24 Tex. Civ. App.
492, 60 S. W. 360.
Vermont. — McElroy v. McLeay, 71 Vt. 396,
45 Atl. 898.
Virginia. — Woods v. Early, 95 Va. 307, 28
S. E. 374.
West Virginia.— Boggeaa v. Meredith, 16
W. Va. 1.
Wisconsin. — Martens v. O'Connor, 101 Wis
18, 76 N. W. 774.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 111
Parol evidence is admissible to show authorization or ratification of a sale by one
cotenant of the entire property so as to create the necessary privity between
parties to an accounting.^^ A purchaser from a cotenant with notice, actual or
constructive, of the character of his title is bound by such notice, and will be
limited in his holding to the actual interest of his grantor.^*
b. Batlfleatlon; Estoppel. An unauthorized sale or conveyance of the whole
property by one tenant in common may be ratified by the others.^^ The non-
consenting cotenant may be estopped from denying the passage of title to the
vendee if he does any act to ratify or confirm the sale; ^° and although the unauthor-
ized sale of a chattel by a tenant in common therein does not affect his cotenant' s
interest, it operates against the vendor as an estoppel.^' A tenant in common
claiming under a sale of or contract in relation to the whole property, by his
cotenant, or approving and adopting such sale or contract, ratifies it; and if the
moneys due thereunder have been paid to the contracting cotenant in accordance
with the terms of such sale or contract, his cotenant cannot recover against the
vendee or obligor therein.^'
e. Remedies of Non-Consenting Cotenants. The non-consenting cotenant
may recover the value of his undivided interest in such property, or may claim
cotenancy therein with the vendee;^' and may usually follow the property in
the hands of a purchaser or recover its value from the wrong-doer;^" and as the
sale of the common property by a tenant in common therein, or one claiming
under him, without the consent of his cotenants, does not pass title of the non-
consenting cotenants' interest, they may maintain trover against the purchaser
of the common property for his subsequent conversion,'' and the purchaser may.
United States. — Lamb v. Wakefield, 14
Fed. Cas. No. 8,024, 1 Sawy. 251.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 132 et seq.
If the complaining cotenant has been guilty
of laches, the conveyance will be upheld even
against him. Kyason v. Dunten, 164 Ind. 85,
73 N. E. 74.
Lessee cannot take advantage of non-
consent. • If the cotenants who do not con-
sent to a lease by one of their number of the
whole property do not interfere with such
lessee he cannot avoid the lease because of
said non-consent. Colorado Fuel, etc., Co. v,
Pryor, 25 Colo. 540, 57 Pac. 51 ; Moreland v.
Strong, 115 Mich. 211, 73 N. W. 140, 69
Am. St. Eep. 553; Martens f. O'Connor, 101
Wis. 18, 76 N. W. 774.
23. Oviatt V. Sage, 7 Conn. 95.
24. Parker v. Brast, 45 W. Va. 399, 32
S. E. 269.
25. Osborn v. Schenck, 83 N. Y. 201.
The unauthorized sale of a chattel by one
tenant in common may be ratified by his co-
tenants, or they may continue to hold
their interest therein. Rogers v. White, 6
Me. 193; Osborn v. Schenck, 83 N. Y. 201.
See also Beecher v. Bennett, 11 Barb. (N. Y.)
374.
Retention of the common property by the
cotenant refusing to ratify a sale thereof is
not the basis of an action for conversion.
Rodermund v. Clark, 46 N. Y. 354.
26. Nalle v. Parks, 173 Mo. 616, 73 S. W.
596.
27. Trammell v. McDade, 29 Tex. 360.
28. Musser v. Hill, 17 Mo. App. 169; Perry
V. Granger, 21 Nebr. 579, 33 N. W. 261;
Phelps V. Conant, 30 Vt. 277.
29. Nevels v. Kentucky Lumber Co., 108
Ky. 550, 56 S. W. 969, 22 Ky. L. Kep. 247,
94 Am. St. Eep. 388, 49 L. R. A. 416; Bal-
lentine v. Joplin, 105 Ky. 70, 48 S. W. 417,
20 Ky. L. Rep. 1062; Benedict v. Torrent, 83
Mich. 181, 47 N. W. 129, 21 Am. St. Rep.
589, 11 L. R. A. 278; Richey i;. Brown, 58
Mich. 435, 25 N. W. 386 ; Ashland Lodge No.
63 I. 0. O. F. f. Williams, 100 Wis. 223, 75
N. W. 954, 69 Am. St. Rep. 912.
Bill against absent defendant. — A bill may
be filed against an absent defendant and his
grantor for confirmation of a sale, and a
decree against the vendor for a share of the
purchase-money, where a tenant in common
has sold the common property to said absent
defendant. Pollard v. Coleman, 4 Call (Va. )
245.
30. Georgia. — Starnes v. Quin, 6 Ga. 84.
Massachusetts. — Weld V. Oliver, 21 Pick.
559.
New Yorh. — Ferris i). Nelson, 60 N. Y.
App. Div. 430, 69 N. Y. Suppl. 999, tenants
in common by devise.
Oklahoma. — ^ Logan v. Oklahoma Mill Co.,
14 Okla. 402, 79 Pac. 103.
Pennsylvania. — Coursin's Appeal, 79 Pa.
St. 220.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 132 et seq.
Reinvested proceeds of unauthorized sale.
— The proceeds of an unauthorized sale by
one cotenant of the entire common property
cannot be followed by another cotenant into
a business in which such proceeds have been
invested, so as to entitle the wronged co-
tenant to an accounting. Coursin's Appeal,
79 Pa. St. 220.
31. Georgia. — Starnes v. Quin, 6 Ga. 84.
Kentucky . — Nevels v. Kentucky Lumber
Co., 108 Ky. 550, 56 S. W. 969, 22 Ky. L.
[IV, B, 1, e]
112 [38 Cye.J
TENANCY IN COMMON
in equity, be held to be a trustee for the non-consenting cotenants.^^ A cotenant
receiving the entire sales price must account therefor and if without authority
he sells 'the common property for credit he must account therefor as though he
had sold it for cash,^ and the same principle applies where instead of selling for
credit the sale is made in exchange of property.'* If a tenant in common
authorized or ratified the sale of the common property by his cotenant, he may
maintain an action against the purchaser for his share of the price. ^^
2. Of Cotenant's Undivided Interest.'" A tenant in common may convey his
undivided interest, or may mortgage it or act in relation thereto as its owner so
long as he does not prejudice the rights of his cotenants in the premises,'' even
Rep. 247, 94 Am. St. Rep. 388, 49 L. R. A.
416.
Maine. — Miller v. Thompson, 60 Me. 322.
Pennsylvania. — Coursin's Appeal, 79 Pa.
St. 220 ; Agnew r. Johnson, 17 Pa. St. 373, 55
Am. Dec. 565.
Texas. — Worsham v. Vignal, 5 Tex. Civ.
App. 471, 24 S. W. 562.
Vermont.— White c. Morton, 22 Vt. 15, 52
Am. Dec. 75.
United States. — Duff v. Bindley, 16 Fed.
178.
Canada. — McLellan v. McDougall, 28 Nova
Scotia 237, purchaser at a sheriff's sale re-
selling part of Ms purchase held liable.
The sale of the entire common property by
the moitgagee of one cotenant, with notice
to the purchaser, terminates the cotenancy,
and the vendee is a joint tort-feasor with the
vendor. Van Doren v. Baity, 11 Hun (N. Y.)
239.
Recovery is limited to plaintiff's equitable
interest. Gerndt v. Conradt, 117 Wis. 15, 93
N. W. 804.
Mere demand for payment in order to save
further trouble and expense, of a vendee with
knowledge or with information of the de-
mandant's title, was held neither to ratify
the sale nor to constitute a waiver of the
right of action against said vendee. Weld
17. Oliver, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 559.
32. Ennis v. Hutchinson, 30 N. J. Eq. 110.
Where there is ample remedy at law, this
will not be done. Mason v. Norris, 18
Grant Ch. (U. C.) 500.
33. Hammer v. Johnson, 44 111. 192;
Walker v. Evans, 98 Mo. App. 301, 71 S. W.
1086; Wright v. Wright, 59 How. Pr. (N. Y.)
176. Compare Rogers v. White, 6 Me. 193.
But the price received by the grantor is
not held by him as trustee for his cotenants.
Milton i: Hogue, 39 N. C. 415.
34. Miller r. Miller, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 133,
19 Am. Dec. 264.
Mortgagees of some of the cotenants re-
ceiving the rents of the mortgaged property
must account to the others of them for their
respective shares thereof. Mcintosh c. On-
tario Bank, 20 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 24.
35. Oviatt V. Sage, 7 Conn. 95; Putnam v.
Wise, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 234, 37 Am. Dec. 309.
Reconveyance of note; surrender. — Where
a tenant in common made an authorized sale
of the entire common property and accepted
a note therefor, and subsequentlj' purchased
it for himself from the makers of the note,
and surrendered the note to them, they were
[IV, By 1, e]
not liable at the suit of the vendor's co-
tenants, the cotenants' remedy being against
the vendor. Cline p. Stradlee, (Tenn. Ch.
App. 1898) 48 S. W. 272. See also Mills v.
Hart, 24 Colo. 505, 52 Pac. 680, 65 Am. St.
Rep. 241; Hodgson v. Fowler, 24 Colo. 278,
50 Pac. 1034; Cecil v. Clark, 44 W. Va. 659,
30 S. E. 216.
36. As creating a tenancy in common be-
tween purchaser and other cotenants see
supra, II, A.
As severing the tenancy between the seller
and his cotenants see supra, II, B.
37. California. — Middlecoff v. Cronise, 155
Cal. 185, 100 Pac. 232; Stark v. Barrett, 15
Cal. 361; People v. Marshall, 8 Cal. 51.
Connecticut. — Barnum v. Landon, 25 Conn.
137.
Kansas. — Jones f. Way, 78 Kan. 535, 97
Pac. 437, 18 L. R. A. N. S. 1180.
Maryland. — Reinioker v. Smith, 2 Harr. &
J. 421.
Michigan. — Mee v. Be"nedict, 98 Mich. 260,
57 N. W. 175, 39 Am. St. Rep. 543, 22 L. R.
A. 641; Ruppe v. Steinbach, 48 Mich. 465, 12
N. W. 658; Campau v. Campau, 44 Mich. 31,
5 N. W. 1062.
New Jersey. — King v. Wilson, 54 N. J.
Eq. 247, 34 Atl. 394.
New York. — Mersereau v. Norton, 15
Johns. 179.
Philippine. — Lopez v. Ilustre, 5 Philip-
pine 567.
Rhode Island. — Crocker v. Tiffany, 9 R. I.
505.
South Carolina. — Boyce v. Coster, 4
Strobh. Eq. 25.
Vermont. — McElroy v. McLeay, 71 Vt. 396,
45 Atl. 898.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 133 ef seq.
One tenant in common may enfeoff another.
Heatherley i: Weston, 2 Wils. C. P. 232,
95 Eng. Reprint 783.
If a tenant in common conveys a certain
share of his interest of the common property,
less than his whole interest, or if he conveys
a certain number of acres less than his pro-
portionate niumber of acres in the whole prop-
erty, it will operate to convey a propor-
tionate share in the whole tract and the ten-
ancy in common of said grantor is not sev-
ered, although said grantee therein may be
entitled to rights and remedies incident to
the tenancy in common. Moragne v. Doe, 143
Ala. 459, 39 So. 161, 111 Am. St. Rep. 52;
Campau V, Campau, 44 Mich. 31, 5 N. W.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cye.J 113
though the common estate can be partitioned only by sale; ^' or consists of two
or more separate tracts,^" and the same rule obtains in the case of chattels owned
in common.^" But the grantees under a conveyance by one cotenant, cannot,
1062 ; Great Falls Co. v. Worcester, 15 N. H.
412; Gratz v. Land, etc., Imp. Co., S2 Fed.
381, 27 C. C. A. 305, 40 L. R. A. 393. Such
a conveyance is not void but passes the con-
veyed interest of the grantor. McLeran v.
Benton, 73 Cal. 329, 14 Pao. 879, 2 Am. St.
Eep. 814; Omaha, etc., Smelting, etc., Co. v.
Taber, 13 Colo. 41, 21 Pac. 925, 16 Am. St.
Eep. 185, 5 L. R. A. 236; Walker v. Sarven,
41 Fla. 210, 25 So. 885; Phipps V. Phipps,
47Kan. 328, 27Pac. 972; Hamilton v. Conine,
28 Md. 635, 92 Am. Dec. 724; Moreland v.
Strong, 115 Mich. 211, 73 N. W. 140, 69
Am. St. Rep. 5S3; Fritz v. Ramspott, 76
Minn. 489, 79 N. W. 520; Flynn v. Herye, 4
Mo. App. 360; Stoddard t. Weston, 3 Silv.
Sup. (N. y.) 13, 6 N. Y. Suppl. 34; Coles v.
Coles, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 159, 8 Am. Dec.
231; Thompson's Appeal, 101 Pa. St. 225;
Harlan v. Central Phosphate Co., (Tenn. Ch.
App.) 62 S. W. 614; Cotton v. Rand, (Tex.
Civ. App. 1898) 51 S. W. 55; Chandler K.
Ricker, 49 Vt. 128; Clymer v. Dawkins, 3
How. (U. S.) 674, 11 L. ed. 778; Allen v.
Anthony, 1 Meriv. 282, 15 Rev. Rep. 113, 35
Eng. Reprint 679; McDearmid v. MoDearmid,
15 Can. L. J. N. S. 112. And the subsequent
grantees of said grantor cannot be heard to
complain thereof. Stark i;. Barrett, 15 Cal.
361; Howard f. Bates, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 484.
But if the purchaser buys from a tenant in
common in possession who is accountable to
his cotenants for the income of the common
property, the purchaser must account for the
income of so much thereof as was productive
at the time of the purchase and taking pos-
session, regardless of the fact that it had
been rendered productive by his grantee. Han-
cock V. Day, McMuU. Eq. (S. C.) 298. The
right of the grantee is sulKciently protected
by subrogating him to the rights of the
grantor on partition as to the interest con-
veyed. Hunter v. Hodgson, (Tex. Civ. App.
1906) 95 S. W. 637. The recording of a
mortgage of such an interest does not amount
to constructive notice of a claim to exclusive
ownership. Davidson v. Coon, 125 Ind. 497,
25 N. j;. 601, 9 L. R. A. 584.
Recording conveyance. — In the absence of
statute to the contrary there is no necessity
for recording conveyances of the common es-
tate as between tenants in common. Great
Falls Co. !/. Worster, 15 N. H. 412.
Form of conveyance. — A conveyance by a
tenant in common to a stranger must be of
the same character as though an estate in
severalty were thereby intended to be con-
veyed; if the intention be to convey a fee,
then words of inheritance or perpetuity must
be used, unless otherwise provided by stat-
ute. Rector f. Waugh, 17 Mo. 13, 57 Am.
Dec. 251. See also Freeman Coten. § 193.
Conveyance by one out of possession.^ If
a law be in force forbidding or avoiding con-
veyances made by one out of possession, it is
equally applicable to cot?najits 99 to others;
[S]
but tenants in common are favored by the
presumption that possession of one is pos-
session of all. Freeman Coten. § 192 [citing
Bird V. Bird, 40 Me. 398 ; Constantine v. Van
Winkle, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 177].
Purchase by cotenant. — The purchase by
one tenant in common of land, of the interest
of one of his cotenants therein, with knowl-
edge that said interest has already been sold
by a parol sale to another of his cotenants
therein, disentitles the said vendee with no-
tice from any interest in such purchased
property, at least until after he shall have
placed the first vendee thereof in statu quo.
Haines v. McGlone, 44 Ark. 79.
What passes by deed. — An equitable claim
for improvements upon the land will not pass
by a deed of all the grantors' " right, title,
and interest " in and to the land. Curtis v.
Poland, 66 Tex. 511, 2 S. W. 39. Nor will a
cotenant's right of subrogation because of
his payment of more than his share of a lien
on the entire property thus pass. Oliver v.
Lansing, 57 Nebr. 352, 77 N. W. 802. Where
an attorney in fact conveyed a certain tract
of land and subsequently an undivided one-
half interest therein was conveyed to him
personally, and not as attorney, a subsequent
conveyance by him of a portion thereof, as
attorney for one of his cobwners, merely
passed the interest of his principal, and did
not affect his own. Eason v. Weeks, (Tex.
Civ. App. 1907) 104 S. W. 1070.
A foreclosure of a chattel mortgage of an
undivided interest in personal property held
by cotenants, acquiesced in by the mortgagor,
cannot be attacked by one holding an interest
in the property as cotenant. Julian v. Yeo-
man, 25 Okla. 448, 106 Pac. 956, 27 L. R. A.
N. S. 618.
38. Horgan v. Bickerton, 17 R. I. 483, 23
Atl. 23, 24 Atl. 772.
39. Shepherd v. Jernigan, 51 Ark. 275, 10
S. W. 765, 14 Am. St. Rep. 50; Green v.
Arnold, 11 R. I. 364, 23 Am. Rep. 466;
Crocker v. Tiffany, 9 R. I. 505; Peterson v.
Fowler, 73 Tex. 524, 11 S. W. 534.
The sale does not operate as a partition
of the common property. Broom v. Pearson,
(Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 81 S. W. 753.
40. ArkoMsas.— CArle v. Wall, (1891) 16
S. W. 293; Titsworth v. Frauenthal, 52 Ark.
254, 12 S. W. 498.
Maine. — McArthur f. Lane, 15 Me. 245.
Missouri. — Sharp v. Benoist, 7 Mo. App.
534.
New York. — Hudson v. Swan, 83 N. Y.
552.
Oregon. — Phipps v. Taylor, 15 Oreg. 484,
16 Pac. 171.
Texas. — Worsham v. Vignal, 5 Tex. Civ.
App. 471, 24 S. W. 562.
Vermont. — Sanborn v. Morrill, 15 Vt. 700,
40 Am. Dec. 701.
Washington. — Vermont L. & T. Co. v. Car-
din, 19 Wash. 304, 53 Pac. 164.
[IV, B, 2]
114 [38 Cyc]
TENANCY IN COMMON
by subsequent dealings between themselves, in any way affect the interests of
the other cotenants therein, without notice to them,^' and it has been held that
one tenant in common cannot so dispose of his interest in the soil to one per-
son and his interest in the minerals to another person as to prejudice the rights
of his cotenants therein.^^ As the purchaser from a cotenant merely takes such
cotenant's interest, he takes subject to the equities of the other cotenants,*'
although the rule is held to be otherwise in the absence of notice.**
3. Conveyance by Metes and Bounds. One tenant in common cannot, as
against and to the prejudice of his cotenants or those claiming under them, devise
or convey a part of the common property in severalty by metes and bounds so
as to convey any undivided interest in the whole estate, nor can such devise or
conveyance be held good as to his cotenants for any portion of the land embraced
therein, without a partition; he can only devise or convey, or except from devise
or conveyance, an undivided share of his whole interest constituting an aliquot
part of the whole estate; ^ nor can he put the purchaser thereof in exclusive
41. Porter v. Stone, 70 Miss. 291, 12 So.
208; Roll V. Everett, 72 N. J. Eq. 20, 65 Atl.
732.
43. Adain v. Briggs Iron Co., 7 Cush.
(Mass.) 361; Boston Franklinite Co. v. Con-
dit, 19 N. J. Eq. 394.
43. Arkansas. — ■ Bowman v. Pettit, 68 Ark.
126, 56 S. W. 780.
Georgia. — Turnbull v. Foster, 116 Ga. 7«5,
43 S. E. 42.
Massachusetts. — Marks V. Sewall, 120
Mass. 174; Torrey i;. Cook, 116 Mass. 163;
Weld V. Oliver, 21 Pick. 559.
Michigan. — Moreland v. Strong, 115 Mich.
211, 73 N. W. 140, 69 Am. St. Eep. 553.
Missouri. — Beck v. Kallmeyer, 42 Mo. App.
563.
New York. — Matter of Lucy, 4 Misc. 349,
24 N. Y. Suppl. 352.
Texas. — Cotton v. Band, (Civ. App. 189,3)
51 S. W. 55.
Utah. — Manti City Sav. Bank v. Peterson,
33 Utah 209, 93 Pac. 566, 126 Am. St. Rep.
817.
A grantee of a coparcener takes only an in-
choate title to a lot afterward assigned in
partition. Flynn v. Herye, 4 Mo. App. 360.
If prior to his taking he has a lien created
by contract, such lien continues. Hudson v.
Swan, 7 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 324 [reversed
on other grounds in 83 N. Y. 552].
44. Nalle v. Thompson, 173 Mo. 595, 73
S. W. 599 (holding that the assignee of a
cotenant who purchased the common property
at a judicial sale for his own interest only
cannot be affected by proceedings between his
grantor and his grantor's cotenant for the en-
forcement of such cotenant's rights as against
such grantor, and especially not if such
grantee had no notice of the equity of his
grantor's cotenant at the time of the grant) ;
Atkinson v. Hewett, 63 Wis. 396, 23 N. W.
889).
45. California. — Gates v. Salmon, 35 Cal.
576, 95 Am. Dec. 139.
Connecticut. — Hartford, etc., Ore Co. v.
Miller, 41 Conn. 112; Marshall v. Trumbull,
28 Conn. 183, 73 Am. Dec. 667; Griswold v.
Johnson, 5 Conn. 363.
Indiana. — Warthen v. Siefert, 139 Ind. 233,
38 N. E. 464.
[IV, B, 2]
Maine. — Duncan v. Sylvester, 24 Me. 482,
41 Am. Dec. 400.
Maryland. — Carroll v. Norwood, 1 Harr.
& J. 100.
Massachusetts. — Peabody v. Minot, 24 Pick.
329; Blossom v. Brightman, 21 Pick. 2»5;
Varnum v. Abbot, 12 Mass. 474, 7 Am. Dec.
»7; Porter v. Hill, 9 Mass. 34, 6 Am. Dec.
22.
Missouri. — Barnhart v. Campbell, 50 Mo.
697 ; McCaul v. Kilpatrick, 46 Mo. 434.
New Hampshire. — Whitton v. Whitton, 38
N. H. 127, 75 Am. Dec. 163; Great Falls Co.
V. Worster, 15 N. H. 412 (holding that such
a conveyance will not prevent a third person
from purchasing the share of the other co-
tenant, in the same manner as if the convey-
ance had never been made) ; Jeffers v. Rad-
cliff, 10 N. H. 242.
New York. — Hunt v. Crowell, 2 Edm. Sel.
Cas. 385.
Ohio. — Dennison v. Foster, 9 Ohio 126, 34
Am. Dec. 429.
Texas. — Dorn f. Dunham, 24 Tex. 366.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 135 et seq.
An attempt by a cotenant to parcel out
mineral rights in their nature indivisible is
voidable as to the other cotenants at their
election. Adam v. Briggs Iron Co., 7 Cush.
(Mass.) 361; Boston Franklinite Co. v. Con-
dit, 19 N. J. Eq. 394.
The question as to the effect of a convey-
ance by metes and bounds usually arises
where there is conflict for the exclusive pos-
session of the property or a part thereof
between the grantor's cotenants, and the
grantee by metes and bounds. Such convey-
ance may be avoided in so far as it inter-
feres with the non-conveying cotenant's
rights. Soutter v. Porter, 27 Me. 405 ; Phil-
lips V. Tudor, 10 Gray (Mass.) 78, 69 Am.
Dec. 306 ; Peabody v. Minot, 24 Pick. (Mass.)
329 ; Bartlet v. Harlow, 12 Mass. 348, 7 Am.
Dec. 76 ; Great Falls Co. v. Worster, 15 N. H.
412.
The leasing of a whole field owned in com-
mon by one of the tenants in common therein
cannot deprive his cotenants of the right to
^^f, \^^ common property, and no trespass
will he for the lawful exercise of the non-
TENANCY IN COMMON
[88 Cyc.J 115
possession of the portion conveyed,"- and such grantee takes subject to the rights
of the remaining cotenants.*' A conveyance by metes and bounds to a stranger
without the knowledge and consent of the grantor's cotenants does not make
such stranger a cotenant so as to give him the absolute right to have the portion
of the entire tract assigned to him.*' But such a devise or conveyance is valid
between the devisor or grantor, and the devisees or grantees, and those claiming
by or under them respectively, although inoperative as to the rights of the
devisor's or grantor's cotenants and those claiming by or under them,*" who
alone can avoid it,^" and that only if it prejudices them,^' the effect of the con-
veyance by the tenant in common of his share by metes and bounds being to pass
the devisor's or grantor's proportional interest in the part described by the deed; "
leasing cotenant's rights in the premises.
Harman v. Gartman, Harp. (S. C.) 430, 18
Am. Dec. 659.
The court will not presume an allotment
of land to the vendee, within specific metes
and bounds, in the absence of evidence of a
partition. There is no presumption of par-
tition from the mere fact of the sale by metes
and bounds of a portion of the common prop-
erty. Holt V. Robertson, McMull. Eq. (S..C.)
475.
Specific amount of timber. — A cotenant's
deed, attempting to convey all the sawed
timber standing on a described portion of the
property, was inoperative as against his co-
tenant; he being unauthorized to convey by
his sole deed an interest in a part of the com-
mon property. Lee v. Follensby, 83 Vt. 35, 74
Atl. 327.
46. Connecticut. — Hinman K. Leavenworth,
2 Conn. 244 note.
Indiana. — Mattox v. Hightshue, 39 Ind. 95.
Maine. — Staniford v. Fullerton, 18 Me. 229.
Texas. — Good v. Coombs, 28 Tex. 34 ; Dorn
V. Dunham, 24 Tex. 366; Stuart v. Baker, 17
Tex. 417.
Wisconsin. — Shepardson v. Rowland, 28
Wis. 108.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 135 et seq.
47. Mora v. Murphy, 83 Cal. 12, 23' Pac.
63; Stark v. Barrett, 15 Cal. 361.
Equity will protect a devisee or grantee
by metes and bounds if it can do so without
prejudice to cotenants of the devisor or of
the grantor; and it has been held that where
the common property is of uniform value
and a portion thereof has been conveyed by
metes and bounds by warranty deed, equity
would require that the land to which another
cotenant was entitled should be set off out
of the portion of the tract not thus conveyed.
Beale v. Johnson, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 119, 99
S. W. 1045; Furrh v. Winston, 66 Tex. 521,
1 S. W. 527; Wells v. Heddenberg, 11 Tex.
Civ. App. 3, 30 S. W. 702; McNeil v. Me-
Dougall, 28 Nova Scotia 296.
Such as the right of partition of the whole
lot. Stark v. Barrett, 15 Cal. 361.
48. Boggess v. Meredith, 16 W. Va. 1.
The conveyance operates as an estoppel as
to the conveying cotenant and his privies.
Varnum v. Abbott, 12 Mass. 474, 7 Am. Dec.
87; MoKey v. Welch 22 Tex. 390.
49. California. — Stark c. Barrett, 15 Cal.
361.
Kentucky. — Young v. Adams, 14 B. Mon.
127, 58 Am. Dec. 654.
Maine. — Duncan v. Sylvester, 24 Me. 482,
41 Am. Deo. 400.
New Hampshire. — Whitton v. Whitton, 38
N. H. 127, 75 Am. Dec. 163.
Texas. — March v. Huyter, 50 Tex. 243;
McKey v. Welch, 22 Tex. 390; McAUen v.
Raphael, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 116, 32 S. W.
449. See also Wade v. Boyd, 24 Tex. Civ.
App. 492, 60 S. W. 360.
Virginia. — Cox v. McMuUin, 14 Gratt. 82.
United States. — Lamb v. Wakefield, 14
Fed. Cas. No. 8,024, 1 Sawy. 251.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 135 et seq.
Action for non-delivery. — The owner of an
undivided interest in land selling the whole
thereof or a part thereof by metes and bounds,
without authority, is liable in damages to
the vendee for a failure to deliver it. Nevins
v. Thomas, 80 Tex. 596, 16 S. W. 332.
50. Connecticut. — Goodwin v. Keney, 49
Conn. 563.
Massachusetts. — Benjamin v. American
Tel., etc., Co., 196 Mass. 454, 82 N. E. 681;
Frost V. Courtis, 172 Mass. 401, 52 N. E. 515;
Dall V. Brown, 5 Cush. 289 ; Nichols v. Smith,
22 Pick. 316.
New Hampshire. — Great Falls Co. v.
Worster, 15 N. H. 412.
Tearas.^ Talkin v. Anderson, (1892) 19
S. W. 350 ; Camoron v. Thurmond, 56 Tex. 22.
Virginia. — Woods V. Early, 95 Va. 307, 28
S. E. 374.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 135 et seq.
51. Kenoye v. Brown, 82 Miss. 607, 35 So.
163, 100 Am. St. Rep. 645; Barnhart v.
Campbell, 50 Mo. 597; Holcomb v. Coryell,
11 N. J. Eq. 548.
A release to such vendee confirms the
previous conveyance. Johnson v. Stevens, 7
Cush. (Mass.) 431.
Necessity of notice of election to avoid. —
There is no necessity on the part of non-con-
senting cotenants to notify grantee that they
elect to avoid such conveyance. Duncan v.
Sylvester, 24 Me. 482, 41 Am. Dec. 400.
52. California. — Mahoney v. Middleton, 41
Cal. 41; Stark i;. Barrett, 15 Cal. 361.
Maryland. — Reinicker v. Smith, 2 Harr.
& J. 421.
Mississippi. — Kenoye v. Brown, 82 Miss.
607, 35 So. 163, 100, Am. St. Rep. 645.
Missouri. — Primm v. Walker, 38 Mo. 94.
[IV, B, 3]
116 [38 Cye.]
TENANCY IN COMMON
and to entitle the grantee and those claiming under him to the rights of the
grantor in the portion thus conveyed.^'
C. Actions and Proceedings — 1. In General; Amount of Recovery.
As to the recovery by a tenant in common suing for possession of land against
a stranger, the authorities are in conflict.^* It is held in many cases that one tenant
in common may recover in ejectment or trespass the entire common property
as against a stranger.^^ On the other hand, there are cases that restrict recovery
A'eif YorZc— Edwards v. Bishop, 4 N. Y. 61.
Compare Hunt v. Crowell, 2 Edm. Sel. Cas.
385.
Ohio. — Dennison f. Foster, 9 Ohio 126, 34
Am. Dec. 429. Compare White v. Sayre, 2
Oliio 110, dissenting opinion.
Philippine. — Lopez v. Ilustre, 5 Philip-
pine 567.
Tennessee.— Jewett v. Stocliton, 3 Yerg.
492, 24 Am. Dee. 594.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 135.
Compare Steele v. Steele, 220 111. 318, 77
N. E. 232; Young V. Edwards, 33 S. C. 404,
11 S. E. 1066, 26 Am. St. Eep. 689, 10
L. E. A. 55.
53. March v. Huyter, 50 Tex. 243 ; McAUen
V. Raphael, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 116, 32 S. W.
449. See also Starnes v. Quin, 6 Ga. 84.
Upon a subsequent partition the grantee
is estopped from claiming interest in any
parcel of the common property except in
that parcel specifically conveyed, and he can-
not take any portion of said parcel not
■witliin the metes and bounds described.
Kenoye v. Brown, 82 Miss. 607, 35 So. 163,
100 Am. St; Rep. 645. See also Hunt v.
Crowell, 2 Edm. Sel. Cas. (N. Y.) 385;
Young V. Edwards, 33 S. C. 404, 11 S. E.
1066, 26 Am. St. Rep. 689, 10 L. R. A. 55.
54. See Williams v. Coal Creek Min., etc.,
Co., 115 Tenn. 578, 93 S. W. 572, 112 Am.
St. Rep. 878, 6 L. R. A. N. S. 710. And see
cases cited infra, the following notes.
5.5. California. — Chipman v. Hastings, 50
Cal. 310, 19 Am. Rep. 655; Williams v.
Sutton, 43 Cal. 65; Treat r. Eeilly, 35 Cal.
129; Rowe v. Bacigalluppi, 21 Cal. 633; Ma-
honey V. Van Winkle, 21 Cal. 552; Hart v.
Robertson, 21 Cal. 346; Touchard v. Crow, 20
Cal. 150, 81 Am. Dec. 108; Stark v. Barrett,
15 Cal. 361. But see Throckmorton v. Burr,
5 Cal. 400.
CoJorodo.— Field v. Tanner, 32 Colo. 278,
75 Pac. 916; Weese v. Barker, 7 Colo. 178,
2 Pac. 919.
Connecticut. — Smith v. Starkweather, 5
Day 207 ; Bush i: Bradley, 4 Day 298.
Hawaii. — Godfrey v. Rowland, 17 Hawaii
577.
Kansas. — Horner v. Ellis, 75 Kan. 675, 90
Pac. 275, 121 Am. St. Rep. 446, so held in an
action against a defendant holding the com-
mon property by a voidable tax deed upon
payment of the lien for taxes.
Michigan. — Lamb v. Lamb, 139 Mich. 166,
102 N. W. 645, under statute.
Minnesota. — Sherin v. Larson, 28 Minn.
523, 11 N. W. 70.
Montana. — Hopkins v, Noyes, 4 Mont. 550,
2 Pac. 280, so holding, even though the title
[IV, B, 3]
of the cotenants not joining as plaintiffs be
defective.
Nevada. — Brown v. Warren, 16 Nev. 228 ;
Sharon v. Davidson, 4 Nev. 416.
NeiD Mexico. — De Bergere v. Chaves, (1908)
93 Pae. 762.
North Carolina. — Winbore v. Elizabeth
City Lumber Co., 130 N. C. 32, 40 S. E. 825.
See Morehead v. Hall, 126 N. C. 213, 35 S. E.
428 (holding that failure to show the owner-
ship of a moiety of the common property not
owned by either of the parties will not dis-
entitle plaintiff from the recovery of his own
interest as against a stranger to the title) ;
Gilchrist v. Middleton, 107 N. C. 663, 12
S. E. 85; Thames v. Jones, 97 N. C. 121, 1
S. E. 692; Lafoon v. Shearin, 95 N. C. 391;
Yancey v. Greenlee, 90 N. C. 317.
North Dakota. — Griswold v. Minneapolis,
etc., R. Co., 12 N. D. 435, 97 N. W. 538, 102
Am. St. Eep. 572.
South Dakota. — Mather v. Dunn, 11 S. D.
196, 76 N. W. 922, 74 Am. St. Rep. 788.
Temas. — ^Waggoner v. Snody, 98 Tex. 512,
85 S. W. 1134 [reversing 36 Tex. Civ. App.
514, 82 S. W. 355]; Gray v. Kauffman, 82
Tex. 65, 17 S. W. 513; Wright v. Dunn, 73
Tex. 293, 11 S. W. 330; Johnson t\ Schu-
macher, 72 Tex. 334, 12 S. W. 207; Ney r.
Mumme, 66 Tex. 268, 17 S. W. 407; Moore
V. Stewart, (1887) 7 S. W. 771; Contreras
t\ Haynes, 61 Tex. 103; Pilcher v. Kirk, 60
Tex. 162; Sowers v. Peterson, 59 Tex. 216;
Hintze v. Krabbenschmidt, (Civ. App. 1897)
44 S. W. 38; Marlin v. Kosmyroski, (Civ.
AppT 1894) 27 S. W. 1042; Bennett f. Vir-
ginia Ranch, etc., Co., 1 Tex. Civ. App. 321,
21 S. W. 126. But see Boone v. Knox, 80
Tex. 642, 16 8. W. 448, 26 Am. St. Rep. 767,
holding that where defendant is not a mere
trespasser a tenant in common is not enti-
tled to recover against such defendant for
other tenants in common not parties.
Vermont. — Bigelow v. Rising, 42 Vt. 678 ;
Robinson v. Sherwin, 36 Vt. 69; Hibbard v.
Foster, 24 Vt. 542; Johnson v. Tilden, 5 Vt.
426.
West Virginia. — ^Voss v. King, 33 W. Va.
236, 10 S. E. 402.
United States. — ^Hardy v. Johnson, 1 Wall.
371, 17 L. ed. 502; French v. Edwards, 9
Fed. Cas. No. 5,098, 5 Sawy. 266, 7 Reporter
68; Le Franc v. Richmond, 15 Fed. Cas. No.
8,209., 5 Sawy. 601.
Canada. — Scott v. McNutt, 2 Nova Scotia
Dec. 118.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 147.
But if by agreement between tenants in
common one is permitted to have the exclu-
sive use and possession of a part of the land
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 117
to the interests of plaintiff only and do not permit recovery by them for them-
selves and their cotenants who are not made parties plaintiff to the suit.^° Thus
it is held that the recovery of a tenant in common, who, with his cotenant, has
been disseized by a stranger, is limited to the interest of such tenant in common,
and after recovery he holds in common with the disseizor.^' Even if the recovery
of the whole be permitted it must be in subordination to the rights of possession
of cotenants,^' provided, however, that before the cotenants can successfully
claim the right of possession they must pay or tender to their successful fellow
their due proportion of the expenses properly incurred for the recovery of the
possession for their common benefit.^" The same rule applies in the case of a
judgment in an action of ejectment in a suit between cotenants or coparceners. ^^
In actions for damages for injury to property or detention thereof, a tenant in
common is entitled to recover only his share of the damages to the whole prop-
erty,*"^ and in a suit for land plaintiff may only recover his proportionate part of
the rents. *^ It has been held that a recovery of a tenant in common suing for
a conversion of a chattel is limited to his share or interest therein."'
which they own together, while the other
has such use and possession of other lands
so owned, then either may recover for any
injury done to that which he has right ex-
clusively to use or possess. Gulf, etc., R.
Co. v. Wheat, 68 Tex. 133, 3 S. W. 455.
56. Alabama. — Stodder v. Powell, 1 Stew.
287.
Georgia-. — Sanford v. Sanford, 58 Ga. 259,
code provision.
Kentucky. — Russell t\ Mark, 3 Mete. 37;
Daniel v. Bratton, 1 Dana 209; Frazier v.
Spear, 2 Bibb 385. But see King v. Bullock,
9 Dana 41.
Massachusetts. — Butrick v. Tilton, 14i
Mass. 93, 6 N. E. 663.
Missouri. — Baber v. Henderson, 156 Mo.
566, 57 S. W. 719, 79 Am. St. Rep. 540. See
also State v. Staed, 64 Mo. App. 453.
New York. — Hasbrouck v. Bunce, 3 Thomps.
& C. 309 [reversed on other grounds in 62
N. Y. 475]. But see Sparks v. Leavy, 1
Rob. 530, 19 Abb. Pr. 364.
Pennsylvania.- — -Mobley v. Bruner, 59 Pa.
St. 481, 98 Am. Dec. 360; Dawson v. Mills,
32 Pa. St. 302 ; Agnew v. Johnson, 17 Pa. St.
373, 55 Am. Dec. 565.
South Carolina. — Bannister v. Bull, 16
S. C. 220 (a case where the owners of one
third of the common property refused to join
as plaintiffs and were joined as defendants) ;
Watson V. Hill, 1 McCord 161; Perry v. Mid-
dleton, 2 Bay 462; Perry t\ Walker, 2 Bay
461; McFadden v. Haley, 2 Bay 457, 1 Am.
Dec. 653.
Tennessee. — Williams v. Coal Creek Min.,
etc., Co., 115 Tenn. 578, 93 S. W. 572, 112
Am. St. Rep. 878, 6 L. R. A. N. S. 710;
Hughes v. Woodard, (Ch. App. 1900) 63
S. W. 191.
Virginia. — ^Marshall v. Palmer, 91 Va. 344,
21 S. E. 672, 50 Am. St. Rep. 838. But see
Allen v. Gibson, 4 Rand. 468.
United States. — Whittle v. Artis, 55 Fed.
919; Stevens v. Ruggles, 23 Fed. Cas. No.
13,408, 5 Mason 221.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 154.
Where a tenant in common recovers in
ejectment against disseizors, he can only
hold for himself and not for the benefit of his
cotenants. Gilman v. Stetson, 18 Me. 428;
Where a compromise verdict is rendered
in favor of one cotenant, amounting to leas
than he claims as his share, he does not take
the land in trust for the benefit of the
vendees at a sheriffs sale of the share of a
bankrupt co-plaintiff claiming cotenancy who
took no interest in the proceedings. Mayes
t\ Rust, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 423, 94 S. W. 110.
57. Baber v. Henderson, 156 Mo. 566, 57
S. W. 719, 79 Am. St. Rep. 540.
58. California. — Stark v. Barrett, 15 Cal.
361.
New Mexico. — De Bergere v. Chaves, 93
Pac. 762.
Texas. — Keith v. Keith, 39 Tex. Civ. App.
363, 87 S. W. 384; Marlin v. Kosmyroski,
(Civ. App. 1894) 27 S. W. 1042.
United States. — Hardy v. Johnson, 1 Wall.
371, 17 L. ed. 502.
Canada. — Scott v. McNutt, 2 Nova Scotia
Dec. 118.
59. Gregg v. Patterson, 9 Watts & S. (Pa.)
197.
60. Robertson v. Robertson, 2 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 235, 38 Am. Dec. 148; Jones -v. De
Laasus, 84 Mo. 541.
61. Alabama. — Birmingham R., etc., Co. V.
Oden, 146 Ala. 495, 41 So. 129; Lowery v.
Rowland, 104 Ala. 420, 16 So. 88.
California. — Muller v. Boggs, 25 Cal. 175;
Clark V. Huber, 20 Cal. 196.
Mississippi.— Haley v. Taylor, 77 Miss.
867, 28 So. 752, 78 Am. St. Rep. 549.
Missouri. — Eastin v. Joyce, 85 Mo. App.
433.
Texas. — Naugher v. Patterson, 9 Tex. Civ.
App. 168, 28 S. W. 582.
Canada. — Brittain v. Parker, 12 Nova
Scotia 589.
63. Muller v. Boggs, -25 Cal. 175; Logan
V. Robertson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 83 S. W.
395
63. Fielder v. Childs, 73 Ala. 567 ; Rolette
V. Parker, 1 111. 350; Bush v. Gamble, 127
Pa. St. 43, 17 Atl. 865; Brittain v. Parker,
12 Nova Scotia 589.
Statute allowing punitive damages see
Richardson v. Richardson, 64 Me. 62.
[IV, C, 1]
118 [38 Cye.J
TENANCY IN COMMON
2. Parties — a. Joinder of Plaintltfs — (i) Actions in Which Cotenants
Need Not Join. A tenant in common may maintain an action without the
joinder of his cotenants where such action is for the protection of his several
interest,"^ and where his cotenant is wrongfully maintaining an adverse position
or is not interested in the recovery/^ and where a statute provides that tenants
in common, or any number less than all, may jointly or severally commence any
action, it is not necessary to make such tenants in common parties plaintiff on
whose behalf no recovery is or should be sought.*' Even where the rule is that
an action should be jointly brought by the cotenants, the tendency of the
American courts has been to permit a separate action in the absence of a plea
64. Alahama. — MeGhee v. Alexander, 104
Ala. 116, 16 So. 148 (for enforcement of
vendor's lien by vendor of his own undivided
interest) ; Tankersley v. Cliilders, 23 Ala.
781.
California. — Eoss v. Heintzen, 36 Cal. 313.
Connecticut. — Barnum v. Landon, 25 Conn.
137; Central Mfg. Co. i: Hartshorne, 3 Conn.
199.
Indiana. — Bowser v. Cox, 3 Ind. App. 309,
29 N E. 616, 50 Am. St. Eep. 274, propor-
tion of rent.
loiva. — Arthur v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 61
Iowa 648, 17 N. W. 24, injury to property
divisible on demand.
Kentucky. — Pope v. Brassfleld, 110 Ky.
128, 61 S. W. 5, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1613. See
also Gaines v. Buford, 1 Dana 481; Doe v.
Botts, 4 Bibb 420 ; Innis v. Crawford, 4 Bibb
241.
Maine. — Longfellow v. Quimby, 29 Me.
196, 48 Am. Dec. 525, trespass quare clausum.
Minnesota.-^ Peck !•. McLean, 36 Minn.
228, 30 N. W. 759, 1 Am. St. Rep. 665.
New Hampshire. — Blake v. Milliken, 14
N. H. 213; Chesley v. Thompson, 3 N. H. 9,
14 Am. Dec. 324.
New "i'orfc.— Stall v. Wilbur, 77 N. Y. 158
(refusal to deliver property divisible on de-
mand, or conversion thereof) ; Jackson i".
Moore, 94 N. Y. App. Div. 504, 87 N. Y.
Suppl. 1101; Soule v. Mogg, 35 Hun 79 (sev-
eral interest in check) ; Gilbert v. Dickerson,
7 Wend. 449, 22 Am. Dec. 592.
Pennsylvania. — De Coursey v. Guarantee
Trust, etc., Co., 81 Pa. St. 217 (distraint for
several share of rent) ; Cook i\ Brightly, 46
Pa. St. 439 (several portion of ground-rent);
Agnew V. Johnson, 17 Pa. St. 373, 55 Am.
Dec. 565.
Tennessee. — Johnson v. Harris, 5 Hayw.
113.
Tewas. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Wheat, 68
Tex. 133, 3 S. W. 455 (agreement for exclu-
sive use by one cotenant) ; Allday f. Whit-
aker, 66 Tex. 669, 1 S. W. 794; Cotton v.
Coit, (Civ. App. 1895) 30 S. W. 281 (for
determination of plaintiff's interest, and an
accounting) ; Smith v. Powell, 5 Tex. Civ.
App. 373, 23 S. W. 1109.
l7<o;i.— Boley v. AUred, 25 Utah 402, 71
Pac. 869.
Washington. — See Vermont L. & T. Co. v.
Cardin, 19 Wash. 304, 53 Pac. 164.
Wyoming. — Gilland v. Union Pac. R. Co.,
6 Wyo. 185, 43 Pac. 508.
United States. — Hall r. Leigh, 8 Cranch
[IV, C, 2. a, (I)]
50, 3 L. ed. 484; Jewett v. Cunard, 13 Fed.
Cas. No. 7,310, 3 Woodb. & M. 277.
England.— Roberta i\ Holland, [1893] 1
Q. B. 665, 62 L. J. Q. B. 621, 5 Reports 370,
41 Wkly. Rep. 494.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 143 et seq.
Trespass to try title to respective interest
see Hines v. Trantham, 27 Ala. 359; John-
son V. Schumacher, 72 Tex. 334, 12 S. W.
207.
Separate demise of cotenant see Jackson
V. Sample, 1 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 231; Hay-
den V. Patterson, 51 Pa. St. 261.
Any one or more of several heirs at law
entitled as tenants in common to a rever-
sionary estate in land may sue for injuries
thereto, but the recovery will be limited to
the proportion of damages those suing are
entitled to. Lowery v. Rowland, 104 Ala.
420, 16 So. 88; Scott v. McNutt, 2 Nova
Scotia Dec. 118.
65. Alabama. — Milner v. Milner, 101 Ala.
599, 14 So. 373.
Georgia. — King v. Neel, 98 Ga. 438, 25
S. E. 513, 58 Am. St. Rep. 311; Starnes v.
Quin, 6 Ga. 84.
Iowa. — Conover v. Earl, 26 Iowa 167.
Maine. — Strickland v. Parker, 54 Me. 263 ;
Lothrop f. Arnold, 25 Me. 136, 43 Am. Dec.
256.
Massachusetts. — Goell v. Morse, 126 Mass.
480; Weld V. Oliver, 21 Pick. 559.
Michigam. — Wight v. Roethlisberger, 116
Mich. 241, 74 N. W. 474.
New Hampshire. — Lyman v. Boston, etc.,
R. Co., 58 N. H. 384; White v. Brooks, 43
N. H. 402.
New York. — Jackson t. Moore, 94 N. Y.
App. Div. 504, 87 N. Y. Suppl. 1101; Griffin
V. Clark, 33 Barb. 46.
Ohio. — Morgan i: Hudnell, 52 Ohio St.
552, 40 N. E. 716, 49 Am. St. Eep. 741, 27
L. R. A. 862.
Pennsylvania. — Agnew r. Johnson, 17 Pa.
St. 373, 55 Am. Dec. 565.
South Carolina. — Harrelson v. Sarvis, 39
S. C. 14, 17 S. E. 368.
A tenant in common permitting a conver-
sion of the common property is not a neces-
sary plaintiff in a suit by his cotenants to
recover damages for the conversion. Sulli-
van V. Sherry, 111 Wis. 476, 87 N. W. 471,
87 Am. St. Eep. 890.
66. Karren v. Eainey, 30 Utah 7, 83 Pac.
333. See also Morehead v. Hall, 126 N. C.
213, 35 S. E. 428.
TENANCY IN COMMON
[88 Cye.] 119
in abatement for the non-joinder of the cotenants; although, if all of the cotenants
were not joined as parties plaintiff, such non-joinder might be taken advantage
of in the measure of damages."' All of the cotenants need not join for the recovery
of the common property as against a stranger, "' and tenants in common may
maintain separate actions of ejectment to recover their respective portions. °°
Where a demise is by tenants in common or one of their number duly authorized
to manage and care for the property and to collect the rents, a tenant in common
may sue for the whole rents, without the joinder of his cotenants; '» but all desiring
benefit of a recovery must be made parties plaintiff." If a tenant in common, in
the absence of statute or agreement to the contrary, recovers damages for injury
67. Starnes v. Quin, 6 Ga. 84; Frazier v.
Spear, 2 Bibb (Ky.) 385; Eastin v. Joyce,
85 Mo. App. 433; Cummings v. Masterson,
42 Tex. Civ. App. 549, 93 S. W. 500; Logan
V. Robertson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 83 S. W.
395.
68. Alabama. — Lecroix v. Malone, 157 Ala.
434, 47 So. 725; Stodder v. Powell, 1 Stew.
287.
Alaska. — Binswanger v. Henninger, 1
Alaska 509.
Maine. — Jewett v. Whitney, 43 Me. 242;
Boobier v. Boobier, 39 Me. 406.
Massachusetts. — Dewey v. Brown, 2 Pick.
387.
liew Hampshire. — Hyde v. Noble, 13 N. H.
494, 38 Am. Dec. 508.
Pennsylvania. — Shamburg v. Moorehead, 4
Brewst. 92.
South Dakota. — Mather v. Dunn, 11 S. D.
196, 76 N. W. 922, 74 Am. St. Rep. 788.
Tcauos.— Mitchell v. Mitchell, 80 Tex. 101,
15 S. W. 705; Harber p. Dyches, (1890) 14
S. W. 580; Bounds v. Little, 75 Tex. 316, 12
S. W. 1109; Carley v. Parton, 75 Tex. 98, 12
S. W. 950; Pileher v. Kirk, 55 Tex. 208;
May V. Slade, 24 Tex. 205; Grassmeyer v.
Beeson, 18 Tex. 753, 70 Am. Dec. 309; Croft
V. Rains, 10 Tex. 520; Kirby v. Blake, (Civ.
App. 1909) 115 S. W. 674; Caruthers r. Had-
ley, (Civ. App. 1908) 115 S. W. 80; Keith
V. Keith, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 363, 87 S. W.
384; Hintze v. Krabbenschmidt, (Civ. App.
1897) 44 S. W. 38.
Vermont. — Bigelow v. Rising, 42 Vt. 678.
West Virginia. — ^Voss v. King, 33 W. Va.
236, 10 S. E. 402.
One devisee can sue an adverse occupant
of the common property in the names of
himself and his cotenants therein. Young
V. Pate, 3 Dana (Ky.) 306.
69. Galifomia. — Covillaud v. Tanner, 7
Cal. 38.
Connecticut. — Robinson v. Roberts, 31
Conn. 145.
Georgia.— Sanford v. Sanford, 58 Ga. 259.
Kentucky. — Craig v. Taylor, 6 B. Mon. 457.
Worth Carolina. — Morehead v. Hall, 126
N. C. 213, 35 S. E. 428.
Tennessee. — Hammett v. Blount, 1 Swan
385.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 147.
In the event of a sale of the common prop-
erty by one cotenant and delivery of posses-
sion to the vendee, and refusal by him to
permit the other cotenant to exercise his
rights therein, the cotenant so excluded may
either bring ejectment against said vendee
or waive the tort, aflSrm the sale, and bring
an action of assumpsit against said vendor.
Murley v. Ennis, 2 Colo. 300.
Mines and minerals. — Under proper cir-
cumstances ejectment may be maintained
against one excluding the coSwner of a
mine or well from possession. Hebrard v.
Jefferson Gold, etc., Min. Co., 33 Cal. 290;
Muller V. Boggs, 25 Cal. 175; Rowe v. Baci-
galluppi, 21 Cal. 633; Mahoney v. Van
.Winkle, 21 Cal. 552; Hart v. Robertson, 21
Cal. 346; Clark t\ Huber, 20 Cal. 196;
Touchard v. Crow, 20 Cal. 150, 81 Am. Dec.
108; Stark v. Barrett, 15 Cal. 361; Waring
V. Crow, 11 Cal. 366; Smith v. Starkweather,
5 Day (Conn.) 207; Bush v. Bradley, 4 Day
(Conn.) 298; Bullion Min. Co. v. Croesus
Gold, etc., Min. Co., 2 Nev. 168, 90 Am. Dec.
526; Hardy v. Johnson, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 371,
17 L. ed. 502. But a tenant in common can-
not dispossess one in possession under his
cotenant, except possibly after notice or
other act terminating the cotenancy or the
leave or license. Ord v. Chester, 18 Cal.
77.
Each tenant in common is entitled to
maintain ejectment according to his own
capacity, regardless of the disabilities of
their cotenants. Harrelson v. Sarvis, 39 S. C.
14, 17 S. E. 368; McFarland v. Stone, 17 Vt.
165, 44 Am. Deo. 325; Merryman v. Hoover,
107 Va. 485, 59 S. E. 483.
One tenant becoming sole owner. — ^Where
by assignment of the interest of a cotenant
one of the tenants in common becomes the
sole owner of leased property, such assignee
may sue in his own name under a statute to
recover possession by summary proceedings.
De Coursey v. Guarantee Trust, etc., Co., 81
Pa. St. 217.
70. Fargo v. Owen, 79 Hun (N. Y.) 181,
29 N. Y. Suppl. 611; Griffin v. Clark, 33
Barb. (N. Y.) 46.
The lessee of a part of the coowners is
liable for rent on a contract to the survivors
of a common owner, even if he did not exe-
cute the lease. Codman v. Hall, 9 Allen
(Mass.) 335.
71. Lee Chuck v. Quan Wo Chong, 91 Cal.
593, 28 Pac. 45; Presbrey v. Presbrey, 13
Allen (Mass.) 281; Jones v. De Coursey, 12
N. Y. App. Div. 164, 42 N. Y. Suppl. 578
[affirmed in 161 N. Y. 627, 55 N. B. 1096] ;
Keith V. Keith, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 363, 87
S. W. 384.
[IV, C, 2, a, (I)]
120 [38 Cyc]
TENANCY IN COMMON
to the entire estate, such recovery inures to the benefit of all of the cotenants
therein, respectively, and an accounting therefor may be compelled.'^ But a
judgment in favor of a tenant in common does not prevent his cotenant from
recovering from the trespasser the damages he has sustained by such trespass."
(ii) Actions in Which Joinder Is Necessary. It is held that tenants
in common should join in all actions for injuries to the common estate, whether
ex contractu or ex delicto; '* and so as to an action of assumpsit or for the recovery
of a purchase-price of the common property, upon the waiver of a tort; '^ and
a suit for the use and occupation of the common land, to recover rent, must be
by the tenants in common jointly and not separately, '* as must be also an action
to recover the surplus in the hands of the mortgagee, after foreclosure by him
of the whole common property under a power; " or for the recovery of an obliga-
tion due to the tenants in common jointly, unless such of them as are not made
parties plaintiff have relinquished their interest in such obligation,'' and the parties
interested must join in an action by coparceners before a severance of their estate
72. Becnel v. Waguespac, 40 La. Ann. 109,
3 So. 536; Bigelow v. Rising, 42 Vt. 678.
73. Gillum v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 4
Tex. Civ. App. 622, 23 S. W. 716.
74. Ceorgia. — Carmichael v. Jordon, 131
Ga. 514, 62 S. E. 810.
Maine. — -Lothrop v. Arnold, 25 Me. 136,
43 Am. Dec. 256; Haskell v. Jones, 24 Me.
222; Bradley v. Boyton, 22 Me. 287, 39 Am.
Dec. 5S2.
Massachusetts. — Gilmore v. Wilbur, 12
Pick. 120, 22 Am. Dec. 410; May v. Parker,
12 Pick. 34, 22 Am. Dee. 393; Merrill v.
Berkshire, 11 Pick. 269; Daniels v. Daniels,
7 Mass. 135.
Mississippi. — Armstrong v. Cannady,
(1903) 35 So. 138; Haley v. Taylor, 77 Miss.
867, 28 So. 752, 78 Am. St. Rep. 549.
Missouri. — -Lane v. Dobyns, 11 Mo. 105;
Smoot V. Wathen, 8 Mo. 522 ; Miller v. Crig-
ler, 83 Mo. App. 395 ; State v. Staed, 64 Mo.
App. 453.
New Hampshire. — White v. Brooks, 43
N. H. 402.
Neio York.— 'De Puy v. Strong, 37 N. Y.
372, 3 Keyes 603, 4 Transcr. App. 239, 4 Abb.
Pr. N. S. 340; Jackson v. Moore, 94 N. Y.
App. Div. 504, 87 N. Y. Suppl. 1101; Hill
V. Gibbs, 5 Hill 56; Low v. Mumford, 14
Johns. 426, 7 Am. Dec. 469.
North Ga/rolina. — Cain v. Wright, 50 N. C
282, 72 Am. Dec. 551.
Ohio. — Morgan v. Hudnell, 52 Ohio St.
552, 40 N. E. 716, 49 Am. St. Rep. 741, 27
L. R. A. 862.
Texas. — Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 35
Tex. Civ. App. 351, SO S. W. 247 ; Galveston,
etc., R. Co. V. Stockton, 15 Tex. Civ. App.
145, 38 S. W. 647; Naugher f. Patterson, 9
Tex. Civ. App. 168, 28 S. W. 582.
Wisconsin. — Tipping r. Robbins, 71 Wis.
507, 37 N. W. 427 ; Earll v. Stumpf, 56 Wis.
50, 13 N. W. 701.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tenancy in Com-
mon," § 146.
Nuisance see Tucker v. Campbell, 36 Me.
346; Low v. Munford, 14 Johns. (K Y.)
426, 7 Am. Dee. 469.
Tort in the nature of waste see Bullock v.
Hayward, 10 Allen (Mass.) 460.
Injuries to personalty see State v. True,. 25
[IV, C, 2, a, (I)]
Mo. App. 451; Dubois v. Glaub, 52 Pa. St.
238.
Trespass quare clausum see Gent v. Lynch,
23 Md. 58, 87 Am. Dec. 558; Austin v. Hall, 13
Johns. (N. Y.) 286, 7 Am. Dec. 376; Winters
V. McGhee, 3 Sn«ed (Tenn.) 128; Rowland v.
Murphy, 66 Tex. 534, 1 S. W. 658; May v.
Slade, 24 Tex. 205; Esson i\ Mayberry, 1
Nova Scotia 186.
Cutting timber see Bradley v. Boyton, 22
Me. 287, 39 Am. Dec. 582; Armstrong v.
Canaday, (Miss. 1903) 35 So. 138; Haley v.
Taylor, 77 Miss. 867, 28 So. 752, 78 Am. St.
Rep. 549; Blake v. Milliken, 14 N. H. 213.
The common-law rule of joinder in assump-
sit may be abrogated by statute. Bucknam
f. Brett, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 596.
But persons whose rights are subordinate
to those of- plaintiffs are not necessarily
parties. Spanish Fork v. Hopper, 7 Utah
235, 26 Pac. 293.
A defense against one of the cotenants is
good as against all of them, if an injury to
the common estate is a joint one. Lowery
V. Rowland, 104 Ala. 420, 16 So. 88.
75. Gilmore v. Wilbur, 12 Pick. (Mass.)
120, 22 Am. Dec. 410; Putnam v. Wise, 1
Hill (N. Y.) 234, 37 Am. Dec. 309; Irwin v.
Brown, 35 Pa. St. 331.
76. Dorsett v. Gray, 98 Ind. 273 ; Webb v.
Conn, 1 Litt. (Ky.) 82, 13 Am. Dec. 225;
Blanton v. Vanzant, 2 Swan (Tenn.) 276;
Doe V. Errington, 1 A. & E. 750, 3 L. J. K. B.
215, 3 N. & M. 646, 28 E. C. L. 349, 110 Eng.
Reprint 1394; Midgley r. Lovelace, Carth.
289, 90 Eng. Reprint 771; Wallace v. Mc-
Laren, 1 M. & R. 516, 31 Rev. Rep. 334, 17
E. C. L. 685; Burne v. Cambridge, 1 M. &
Rob. 539.
But where all of the cotenants excepting
one died, it has been held that the action of
assumpsit for the use and occupation of the
common property survived to the survivor.
Central Mfg. Co. v. Hartshorne, 3 Conn. 199.
77. Halliday v. Manton, 29 R. I. 205, 69
Atl. 847; Clapp v. Pawtucket Sav. Inst 15
R. I. 489, 8 Atl. 697, 2 Am. St. Rep. 915.
78. Suydam v. Combes, 15 N. J. L 133-
Coster r. New York, etc., R. Co., 6 Duer
(N. Y.) 43; MeGrady v. McEae, 1 Tex. App.
Civ. Cas. § 1036. ^^
TENANCY IN COMMON
[38 Cyc] 121
upon a warranty to the ancestor." Tenants in common are not united in interest
within the meaning of a statute requiring such persons to join in an action for
the recovery of -property.^" The owner of an undivided interest in property
cannot sue in replevin to recover possession thereof. All the owners must be
joined.'^ The failure to prove that plaintiffs are the sole tenants in common of
the premises in an action which must be brought jointly precludes recovery in
the absence of statute to the contrary.*^
(hi) Actions in Which Joinder Is Permissive. Tenants in common
may join in a suit for the recovery of the common property, '^ in an action of
waste, ^'' for a nuisance,^'' for trespass or an injunction where so provided by
statute,*" and for a restraining order against execution in ejectment, where they
are entitled to repayment for improvements, even though all of them were not
parties defendant in the ejectment suit." They may join in an action for an
injury to realty or personalty even if each of them is in separate possession of
separate parts of the common property,'* in covenant or assumpsit for money
had and received, to recover rents or share of income,*' or in distraiat for rent,'"
or for conversion of the common property."'
(iv) Actions Which Cotenants Cannot Maintain Jointly. As the
interest of the tenants in common are several and not joint they cannot, at the
common law, jointly maintain a real action in relation to the entire common
property; but they must sever, in the absence of statute to the contrary."^ The
Especially after a plea in abatement. Gil-
bert V. Dickerson, 7 Wend; (N. Y.) 449, 22
Am. Dec. 592; Goodspeed v. Wasatch Silver
Lead Works, 2 Utah 263.
79. Tapscott v. Williams, 10 Ohio 442,
holding that the estate of coparceners differs
in some respects from that of tenants in
common, so that in many cases the rules
applicable to joint tenancies as contra-dis-
tinguished from tenancies in common pre-
vail.
80. Mather v. Dunn, 11 S. D. 196, 76
N. W. 922, 74 Am. St. Eep. 788.
81. McCabe v. Black Eiver Transp. Co., 131
Mo. App. 531, 110 S. W. 606.
Replevin for grain raised by the tenants in
common cannot be maintained by one of them
as against third persons. Carle v. Wall,
(Ark. 1891) 16 S. W. 293; Titsworth v.
Frauenthal, 52 Ark. 254, 12 S. W. 498; Mc-
Arthur v. Lane, 15 Me. 245 ; Vermont L. &, T.
Co. V. Cardin, 19 Wash. 304, 53 Pac. 164.
82. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 35 Tex.
Civ. App. 351, 80 S. W. 247.
83. California. — Goller v. Fett, 30 Cal.
481.
District of ColumMa. — Wheat v. Morris, 21
D. C. 11.
Illinois. — West Chicago Park Com'rs v.
Coleman, 108 111. 591.
Mississippi. — Corbin v. Cannon, 31 Miss.
570. ^
Nevada, — Alford v. Dewin, 1 Nev. 207.
New Mexico.- — ^Neher v. Armijo, 9 N. M.
325, 54 Pac. 236.
United States. — Hicks v. Rogers, 4 Cranch
165, 2 L. ed. 583.
But if the action be speculative merely,
it has been held that one tenant in common
cannot maintain an action of trespass to try
title for the benefit of all. Cromwell v. Holli-
day, 34 Tex. 463.
84. Greenly v. Hall, 3 Harr. (Del.) 9.
85. Parke v. Kilham, 8 Cal. 77, 68 Am.
Dec. 310, diversion of water.
86. Wagoner v. Silva, 139 Cal. 559, 73 Pac.
433; Smith f. Stearns Rancho Co., 129 Cal.
58, 61 Pac. 662.
87. Russell v. Defrance, 39 Mo. 506.
88. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hart, 119
Ind. 273, 21 N. E. 753, 4 L. R. A. 549; Ramr
say V. Brown, (Pa.) 17 Atl. 207; Johnson v.
Goodwin, 27 Vt. 288.
89. Price v. Pickett, 21 Ala. 741; Kidwell
V. Kidwell, 84 Ind. 224.
Heirs. — Although the heirs may sue jointly
or severally, less than the whole number of
them cannot sue jointly. Kimball v. Sumner,
62 Me. 305; Blake v. Milliken, 14 N. H.
213.
90. Jones v. Gundrim, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.)
531.
91. Blake v. Milliken 14 N. H. 213 ; Steele
V. McGill, 172 Pa. St. 100, 33 Atl. 146 ; Sulli-
van V. Sherry, 111 Wis. 476, 87 N. W. 471,
87 Am. St. Rep. 890; Welch v. Sackett, 12
Wis. 243.
Where the common property has been
mortgaged to secure a debt of one of the
cotenants on his promise of reimbursement
to his cotenants for any consequent loss, and
the mortgage has been foreclosed, a joint
action was maintained by said cotenants
against the one in default. Steele v. Mc-
Gill, 172 Pa. St. 100, 33 Atl. 146.
Tenants in common may support a joint
action against an administrator who has
wrongfully received rents, profits, and crops
from the common property. Kidwell v. Kid-
well, 84 Ind. 224.
93. California. — Throckmorton v. Burr, 5
Cal. 400.
Kentucky. — Briscoe v. MeGee, 2 J. J.
Marsh. 370.
Massachusetts. — -Rehoboth v. Hunt, 1
Pick. 224.
[IV, C, 2. a, (IV)]
122 [38 Cyc]
TENANCY IN COMMON
rule is the same in actions of account, unless parties plaintiff are partners;'^ in
actions of assumpsit, brought tuider statutes, in the nature of account; °* in actions
for fraud in the sale of property; ^ and so as to an action to set aside separate
deeds made at different times, of the respective interests, to a common vendee.'"
At common law they could not join in ejectment; °' but this rule has been changed
in many states, sometimes by statute and sometimes by judicial decisions."
b. Defendant. In actions relating to cotenants, all parties necessary to the
determination of an issue should be made either parties plaintiff or parties
defendant." But where there is a purchase of property in common, each pur-
chaser is liable only for his share of the purchase-price and he should not be sued
jointly with the purchaser of any other share or interest in said property, nor should
a judgment go against him for the unpaid purchase-money of such other share.'
An agreement by tenants in common for the performance of services in relation
to the common property being joint, the liability is joint; and therefore all of
the tenants in common should be made parties defendant; ^ and where a tort has
been committed by one tenant in common, for himself and as agent for his
cotenants, within the scope of his agency, all of the said cotenants are liable and
may be made parties defendant,* and in an action soimding in tort either all or
any of the tort-feasors may be sued.* Where a statute provides that tenants
ia common, or any number less than all, may jointly or severally defend any
l>lew Hampshire. — Stevenson v. Cofferln, 20
N. H. 150; Kand V. Dodge, 12 N. H. 67.
New York. — Decker v. Livingston, 15
Johns. 479.
Three heirs cannot sue jointly if there be
four of them. Kimball v. Sumner, 62 Me.
305.
93. McPherson v. McPherson, 33 N. C. 391,
53 Am. Dec. 416 ; McCreary v. Ross, 7 Watts
(Pa.) 483; Cotton v. Coit, (Tex. Civ. App.
1895) SOS. W. 281.
94. Mooers v. Bunker, 29 N. H. 420.
95. Baker v. Jewell, 6 Mass. 460, 4 Am.
Dec. 162.
96. Jeflfers v. Forbes, 28 Kan. 174.
97. De Johnson v. Sepulbeda, 5 Cal. 149;
Hillhouse v. Mix, 1 Root (Conn.) 246, 1 Am.
Dec. 41; Doe v. Buford, 1 Dana (Ky.) 481;
Mantle v. Wellington, Cro. Jac. 166, 79 Eng.
Reprint 145.
98. See the statutes of the several states.
And see Wheat v. Morris, 21 D. C. 11; Swett
V. Patrick, 11 Me. 179; Corbin v. Cannon, 31
Miss. 570; Gray i;. Givens, 26 Mo. 291; Poole
r. Fleeger, 11 Pet. (U. S.) 185, 9 L. ed. 680,
955.
Actions for the recovery of mining claims
may be maintained by the tenants in com-
mon severally or jointly, even though their
undivided interests have been acquired at
different times. Binswanger i'. Henninger, 1
Alaska 509; Goller v. Fett, 30 Cal. 481. The
amount due to each cotenant for the work-
ing of the common property is a several debt
due to himself alone. Hall v. Fisher, 20
Barb. (N. Y.) 441.
99. Connecticut. — Barnum v. Landon, 25
Conn. 137.
Kentucky. — ^Venable v. Beauchamp, 3
Dana 321, 28 Am. Dec. 74.
Missouri. — Nalle v. Thompson, 173 Mo.
595, 73 S. W. 599.
tJew York. — Coster v. New York, etc., R.
Co., 6 Duer 43.
[IV, C, 2, a, (IV)]
England. — Fallowes v. Williamson, 11 Ves.
Jr. 306, 32 Eng. Reprint 1106. And see cases
cited infra, the following notes.
The mortgagee of one tenant in common is
a necessary party in a suit for an accounting
between the cotenants. Howard V. Throck-
morton, 59 Cal. 79.
One who has been a tenant in common but
has divested himself of his title therein is
not a, proper party defendant in an ordinary
suit in relation thereto. Lewis v. Night, 3
Litt. (Ky.) 223; Peterson v. Fowler, 73 Tex.
524, 11 S. W. 534. See Barnum f. Landon,
25 Conn. 137.
Accounting. — In an action of accounting
only such tenant in common as has received
more than his share of the profits is a proper
party defendant; if any of the tenants in
common be partners, such partnership may be
a proper party defendant; usually each ten-
ant in common resisting an accounting should
be made a separate party defendant in a
separate suit. McPherson v. McPherson, 33
N. C. 391, 53 Am. Dec. 416.
1. Lallande v. Wentz, 18 La. Ann. 289.
2. Matter of Robinson, 40 N. Y. App. Div.
23, 57 N. Y. Suppl. 502.
3. Elliott V. McKay, 49 N. C. 59.
Nuisance. — Ordinarily the use of the com-
mon property, so as to create a nuisance, is
not within the power of any cotenant so as
to bind the others in damages for such
nuisance; and therefore liability for such
nuisance ordinarily attaches only to the
actual tort-feasor. Simpson v. Seavey, 8 Me.
138, 22 Am. Dec. 228.
4. Low V. Mumford, 14 Johns. (N. Y.)
426, 7 Am. Dec. 469.
Negligence.--While it is ordinarily the rule
that tenants in common should all be made
defendants in an action for negligence respect-
ing the premises owned by them, yet it is not
necessary nor even proper to do so where the
negligence complained of is the act of one
TENANCY IN COMMON— TENANT [38 CycJ 123
action it is not necessary to make such tenants in common parties defendant
against whom no remedy is sought;^ and it seems that, although the general
rule is that a tenant in common cannot maintain an action of trespass in respect
to the common land he may separately defend the position and the possession
of the land held in common/ It is not necessary to make those tenants in common
parties defendant, against whom no relief is sought in ejectment.'
3. Limitations. A bar by virtue of the statute of limitations against some
of the tenants in common does not operate as against the others because their
respective interests are several and not joint; * and where such a bar exists, a
recovery in an action for the recovery of land can only go as to the interest of
the tenant in common against whom the bar does not apply.* Generally the
right of all the cotenants will be saved from the operation of the statute of limita-
tions by any cause that will prevent its running against any of them.'" One
cotenant cannot, after limitations have applied, revive a debt, so as to create
any new liability therefor as against his cotenants.'^
. Tenancy in coparcenary. See Tenancy in Common, ante, p. 5.
Tenant, in the broadest sense, a purchaser of an estate in the land or
building hired; * one who holds or possesses lands or tenements by any kind of
title, either in fee, for life, for years, or at will ; ^ one who holds or possesses lands
or tenements by a kind of title; ^ one who holds or possesses lands by any kind
of right.* In a more restricted sense, one who has possession of the premises
of another in subordination to that other's title, and with his consent; * the party
to whom a lease is made; ° one who holds or occupies under another person; ' one
who has the occupation or temporary possession of the lands or tenements whose
title is in another; correlative to landlord; * one who has an occupation or tem-
porary possession of lands or tenements, whose title is in another; one who has
possession of any place; a dweller, an occupant; * one who has the occupation or
temporary possession of lands or tenements whose title is in another; *" one who
occupies land or premises of another, in subordination to that other's title and
with his assent, express or implied." (Tenant: In General, see Landlord and
in possession or control of the common prop- " a written petition describing the premises
erty. Baker v. Fritts, 143 111. App. 465. and the interest therein of the petitioner," a
.5. Karren *. Rainey, 30 Utah 7, 83 Pac. description of the occupant as " tenant " is
333. not sufficiently definite].
6. Esson V. Mayberry, 1 Nova Scotia 186. 4. Webster Diet, [quoted in Woolsey i:
7. Waring, v. Crow; 11 Cal. 366. See also State, 30 Tex. App. 346, 347, 17 S. W.
Posgate V. Herkimer Mfg., etc., Co., 12 Barb. 546].
(N. Y.) 352 [affirming 9 Barb. 287, and A person must have some estate be it ever
affirmed in 12 N. Y. 580]. so little, such as that of a tenant at will or
8. Chipman v. Hastings, 50 Cal. 310; Wil- on sufferance, to be a tenant. Occupation as
liams V. Sutton, 43 Cal. 65 ; Pope v. Brass- servant or licensee does not make one a ten-
field, 110 Ky. 128, 61 S. W. 5, 22 Ky. L. Hep. ant. Presby f. Benjamin, 169 N. Y. 377,
1613; Johnson v. Schumacher, 72 Tex. 334, 12 380, 62 N. E. 430, 57 L. R. A. 317.
S. W. 207; MoFarland v. Stone, 17 Vt. 165, 5. Lightbody v. Truelsen, 39 Minn. 310,
44 Am. Dec. 325. 313, 40 N. W. 67.
9. Johnson v. Schumacher, 72 Tex. 334, 12 6. Becker v. Becker, 13 N. Y. App. Div.
S. W. 207. 342, 349, 43 N". Y. Suppl. 17; Jackson v.
10. Gourdine v. Theus, 1 Brev. (S. C.) 326. Harsen, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 323, 326, 17 Am. Dec.
11. Buck V. Spofford, 40 Me. 328. 617.
1. Bowe V. Hunking, 135 Mass. 380, 383, 7. Birks v. Allison, 13 C. B. N. S. 12, 23,
46 Am. Rep. 471. 106 E. C. L. 11.
• 2. Bouvier L. Diet, [quoted in Clift V. 8. Webster Diet, [quoted in Place v. St.
White, 12 N. Y. 519, 527]. See also Walker Paul Title Ins., etc., Co., 67 Minn. 126, 129,
f. McCusker, 71 Cal. 594 597, 12 Pac. 723; 69 N. W. 706, 64 Am. St. Rep. 404].
Hosford V. Ballard, 39 N. Y. 147, 151. 9. Webster Diet, [quoted in Woolsey v.
3. McAdam Landl. & Ten. [quoted in Fuchs State, 30 Tex. App. 346, 347, 17 S. W. 546],
V. Cohen, 19 N. Y. Suppl. 236, 22 N. Y. Civ. 10. Webster Diet, [quoted in Birks v. Alli-
Proe. 269, 29 Abb. N. Cas. 56, where it was son, 13 C. B. N. S. 12, 23, 106 E. C. L.
held that under a statute requiring the appli- 11].
cant in forcible entry and detainer to present 11. Wood Landl. & Ten. [quoted in Alex-
[IV, C, 3]
124 [38Cye.j TENANT— TENANT AT WILL
Tenant, 24 Cyc. 845. By the Curtesy, see Curtesy, 12 Cyc. 1001. In Common,
see Tenancy in Common, ante, p. 1. Joint, see Joint Tenancy, 23 Cyc. 482.
Life, see Estates, 16 Cyc. 614.)
TENANTABLE REPAIR. See 20 Cyc. 1259 note 38.
Tenant at sufferance. One who comes into possession by a lawful
demise and, after his term is ended, continues wrongfully and holds over; '^ one
who having entered under a lawful title holds over without right and by reason
of the laches of his landlord, after the termination of the interest ; *^ one who,
having come into possession by right, holds over without right ; " one who at
first came in by lawful demise or title, and, afterward, continues wrongfully in
possession; ^^ one who comes to the possession of lands or tenements by a lawful
title, but keeps them afterward without any title at all;^° one who originally
comes in by right, but continues by wrong ; *' one that comes into possession of
land by lawful title, but holdeth over by wrong, after the determination of his
interest.^* (See Landlord and Tenant, 24 Cyc. 1041.)
Tenant at will. One who holds lands or tenements let to him by another
at the will of the lessor;^" one who enters into the possession of land, etc., of
another lawfully, but for no definite term or purpose, and whose possession is
ander %. Gardner, 123 Ky. 552, 554, 96 S. W.
818, 29 Ky. L. Eep. 958, 124 Am. St. Eep.
378; Adams v. Gilchrist, 63 Mo. App. 639,
645; Dixon v. Ahem, 19 Nev. 422, 426, 14
Pac. 598; Forrest v. Durnell, 86 Tex. 647,
650, 26 S. W. 481; Francis v. Holmes, (Tex.
Civ. App. 1909) 118 S. W. 881, 883].
Held not to include an under-tenant, in a
statute relating to distress for rent. Coles
!;. Marquand, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 447, 449. But
see Farwell v. Jameson, 23 Ont. App. 517,
522, where the statute included subtenant
and assignees of the tenant.
" Cropper " distinguished see Burgie ».
Davis, 34 Ark. 179, 182; Harrison v. Ricks,
71 N. C. 7, 10, 11; Strain v. Gardner, 61 Wis.
174, ,181, 21 N. W. 35.
Lodger distinguished see White v. May-
nard, HI Mass. 250, 253, 15 Am. Rep. 28;
Linwood Park Co. v. Van Dusen, 63 Ohio St.
183, 200, 518 N. E. 576 [ciimjr 1 McAdam
Landl. & Ten. 621].
" Tenant in possession " see Walker v. Mc-
Ousker, 1 Cal. 594, 596, 12 Pac. 723; Harris
V. Reynolds, 13 Cal. 514, 517, 73 Am. Dec.
600 ; Whithed v. St. Anthony, etc., El. Co., 9
N. D. 224, 227, 83 N. W. 238, 81 Am. St.
Rep. 562, 50 L. R. A. 254.
" Tenant of the freehold " see Culpeper
County K. Gorrell, 20 Gratt. (Va.) 484, 511.
12. Godfrey v. Walker, 42 Ga. 562, 574.
13. Kunzie v. Wixom, 39 Mich. 384, 387.
14. Allen v. Carpenter, 15 Mich. 25, 34
{citing Coke Litt. 575; 2 Blackstone Comm.
150], holding that the term as used in the
statute providing that " all estates at will
and at sufferance may be determined by
either party, by three months' notice given to
the other party," is not used in a sense which
would! entitle any one holding over wrong-
fully to the statutory notice.
15. Livingston v. Tanner, 12 Barb. (N. Y.)
481, 484 [citing 2 Blackstone Comm. 150; 4
Kent Comm. 116; Crabb Law Real Prop.].
16. Pleasants v. Claghorn, 2 Miles (Pa.)
302, 304.
17. Coke Litt. [quoted in Hanson v. John-
son, 62 Md. 25, 29, 50 Am. Rep. 199].
18. Kent Comm. [quoted in Fielder v.
Childs, 73 Ala. 567, 577; Johnson v. Donald-
son, 17 R. I. 107, 108, 20 Atl. 242]. See also
Kellogg V. Kellogg, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 116,
130.
Examples of this kind of tenure usually
given are a lessee for a term of years or for
the life of another person who holds the pos-
session of the lands or tenements after his term
or estate has expired. It is in effect nothing
more than the continuance of a possession
lawfully taken after the title under which it
was taken has ended. Pleasants v. Claghorn,
2 Miles (Pa.) 302, 304.
If the lessee of a tenant for life is in pos-
session at the time of the life-tenant's death,
and continues to hold over, he becomes a
tenant by sufferance; but if the lessee is not
in possession, or does not hold over, the mere
recognition of a lease previously made does
not constitute such tenancy. Wright V.
Graves, 80 Ala. 416, 420 [citing Taylor
Landl. & Ten. § 113].
Such tenant is not a trespasser. Bright v.
McOuat, 40 Ind. 521, 525 [citing Washburn
Real Prop.].
Distinguished from "tenant at will."
Willis V. Harrell, 118 Ga. 906, 909, 45 S. E.
794.
Creation of estate by act of the parties,
and holding over, is necessary to make one a
tenant at suflTerance, and where one holds
over after the termination of an estate cast
upon him by operation of law, he is not a
tenant at sufferance but a trespasser. Patti-
Bon V. Dryer, 98 Mich. 564, 566, 57 N. W.
814.
19. Spalding v. Hall, 6 D. C. 123, 125
[citing 2 Blackstone Comm. 145; 4 Kent
Comm. 110], and adding: "But this defini-
tion gives a very imperfect idea of the rights
and obligations of a landlord and tenant, be-
tween whom a tenancy at will subsists. A
tenancy at will arose in every case where one
man leased lands or tenements to another,
and no iixed period of time was agreed
upon at which the occupancy thereof should
cease."
TENANT AT WILL— TEN DA Y8' AD VEBTISING [38 Cyc] 125
subject to the determination of the landlord at any time he sees fit to put an end
to it; ^° one who enters into the possession of the lands or tenements of another,
lawfully, but for no definite term or purpose, but whose possession is subject to
termination by the landlord at any time he sees fit to put an end to it.^' (See
Landlord and Tenant, 24 Cyc. 1036.)
TENANT BY THE CURTESY. See Curtesy, 12 Cyc. 1001.
TENANT FACTORY. As defined by the New York Labor Law, a building,
separate parts of which are occupied and used by different persons, companies,
or corporations, and one or more of which parts is so used as to constitute in law
a factory.^^
Tenant for life. One to whom lands or tenements are granted or devised,
or to which he derives title by operation of law for the term of his own life, or
the life of another.^" (See Estates, 16 Cyc. 614.)
Tenant in fee simple. See Estates, 16 Cyc. 601.
Tenant's fixtures. In its strict legal definition, a term understood to
signify things which are afiixed to the freehold of the demised premises, but which
nevertheless the tenant is allowed to disannex and take away, provided he season-
ably exert his right to do so.^*
Ten clear days. See Clear Days, 7 Cyc. 188.
Tend. To move in a certain direction; to be directed, as to any end, object,
or purpose; to aim; to have or give leaning; to exert activity, to influence; to
serve as a means ; to contribute. ^^
Ten days' advertising, a notice published at least ten times, and on
ten distinct days.^°
20. Robb V. San Antonio St. E. Co., 82
Tex. 392, 394, 18' S. W. 707; Emerson v.
Emerson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 35 S. W.
425, 426.
21. Wood Landl. & Ten. [quoted in Thomp-
son V. Baxter, 107 Minn. 122, 124, 119 N. W.
797, 21 L. R. A. N. S. 575].
He is called " tenant at will because he
hath no certain nor sure estate, for the lessor
may put him out when he please." Thomp-
son V. Baxter, 107 Minn. 122, 124, 119 N. W.
797, 21 L. R. A. N. S. 575 Iciting Wood
Landl. & Ten. 43]; Post v. Post, 14 Barb.
(N. Y.) 253, 258 [citing Coke Litt. § 68; 2
Cruise 269; 4 Kent Comm. 110]; Barry v.
Smith, 1 Misc. (N. Y.) 240, 243, 23 N. Y.
Suppl. 129 [citing McAdam Landl. & Ten.
35].
It includes one who is placed on land with-
out any terms prescribed or rent reserved,
and has a mere occupancy. Stoltz v. Kretsch-
mar, '24 Wis. 283, 285 [citing 4 Kent
Comm. 114]. "If one, with the consent of
the owner, is let into, or remains in posses-
sion, under circumstances not showing an in-
tention to create a freehold interest, or a
tenancy from year to year, he is a tenant at
will. A vendee let in under an oral agree-
ment of purchase, is a tenant. at will," and a
parol gift of land creates a mere tenancy at
will, which may be revoked or disaffirmed by
the donor. Collins v. Johnson, 57 Ala. 304,
307 [citing 1 Washburn Real Prop. 511].
A person who enters and holds land under
a contract to buy it is to be regarded at law
as at least a tenant at will. Jones v. Jones,
2 Rich. (S. C.) 542.
A tenant holding over is not a tenant at
will, unless he holds over at the express or
implied consent of the landlord. Benfey v.
Congdon, 40 Mich. 283, 285.
Distinguished from " tenant at suflferance "
see Willis v. Harrell, 118 Ga. 906, 909, 45
S. E. 794.
22. People v. Eno, 134 N. Y. App. Div.
527, 530, 119 N. Y. Suppl. 600; Minsky v.
Weller, 63 Misc. (N. Y.) 244, 245, 116 N. Y.
Suppl. 628.
23. In re Hyde, 41 Hun (N. Y.) 72, 75;
Hyde v. Gage, 11 N. Y. Civ. Proc. 155, 159.
24. Wall V. Hinds, 4 Gray (Mass.) 256,
270, 64 Am. Dec. 64, where the term was held
to include gas and water pipes.
25. Webster Diet, [quoted in Hogue v.
State, 93 Ark. 316, 322, 124 S. W. 783, where
it is said : " To say that a thing tends or has
a tendency to establish a certain state of
facts is not a declaration as to the weight to
be given to it, but is a mere statement that
it is directed toward or moves in the direction
of a certain result, the degree of its force not
being mentioned. To say that a circumstance
tends to prove the issue is no more than
saying that it may be considered for the pur-
pose of determining the issue"].
" The statement that there has been evi-
dence ' tending to show ' a particular fact,
is equivalent to a statement that evidence has
been offered relating to such fact. The force
and effect of the evidence is in no sense sug-
gested by the term. . . . The word ' tending '
... in its primary sense . . . means direc-
tion or course towards any object, effect, or
result — drift." White f. State, 153 Ind.
689, 691, 692, 54 N. E. 763 [citing Webster
Int. Diet. 1484].
" Tends to expose " see Turton v. New York
Recorder, 3 Misc. (N. Y.) 314, 318, 22 N. Y.
Suppl. 766.
26. Maxwell v. Burns, (Tenn. Ch. App.
1900) 59 S. W. 1067, 1071, where such was
held to be the meaning of the phrase as used
126 [38 Cyc] TENDED LINE
Tended line, a line with a single hook fastened to any object upon the
banks or upon the ice.^'
in a decree for the sale of personalty of a 27. State f. Stevens, 69 Vt. 411, 414, 39
decedent's estate " after ten days' advertis- Atl. 80, where such was held to be the mean-
ing." "An advertisement on one day ten days ing of the term as used in a statute imposing
prior to the sale would certainly not be ' ten a penalty upon certain fishing, except fishing
days' advertising,' nor would a publication through the ice with not more than fifteen
three times within that time be ' ten days' tended lines,
advertising.' "
TENDER
By Alva R. Hunt*
I. DEFINITION, 131
II, NECESSITY OR AVAILABILITY, 132
A. Necessity, 132
B. Demands Upon Which Tender May Be Made, 133
C. When Failure to Make Tender Excused or Waived, 134
III. FORM, REQUISITES, AND SUFFICIENCY, 137
A. Amount, 137
1. Rule Stated, 137
2. Interest and Costs, 138
3. Tender of More Than Is Due and Demand For Change, 139
a. In General, 139
b. Waiver of Objection, 140
4. Tender of Balance Over Offset, 140
5. Tender on Several Demands, 140
6. Waiver of Objection to Amount, 141
B. Manner, 141
1. In General, 141
2. Actual Offer, 142
3. Ability to Perform, 142
4. Actual Production of Thing Tendered, 143
a. In General, 143
b. Counting Out Money, 144
c. Waiver, 144
5. Tender in Writing; Statutory Provisions, 145
G. Medium, 146
D. Time and Place, 147
1. Time, 147
a. In General, 147
b. Time of Day, 148
c. Premature Tender, 149
d. Tender After Action Brought, 149
e. Waiver of Objection to Time, 150
2. Place, 150
a. Where Place Is Appointed, 150
b. Where no Place Is Appointed, 150
c. Deposit in Bank or Other Depository, 151
E. Necessity That Tender Be Unconditional, 152
1. In General, 152
2. Amount Offered Must Be Admitted to Be Due; Payment Under
Protest, 153
3. Tender Conditioned Upon the Surrender of Evidence of Indebtedness
or Security, 154
4. Demanding Receipt or Discharge, 154
F. By Whom Made, 155
1. In General, 155
2. Joint Debtor, 155
3. Ratification of Unauthorized Tender, 156
* Author of " Hunt on Tender."
127
128 [38 CycJ TENDER
G. To Whom Made, 156
1. In General, 156
2. To Agent, Attorney, or Servant, 156
3. To Joint Creditor, 157
H. Tender of Specific Articles, 158
IV. Keeping Tender Good, i58
A. Necessity, 158
B. Manner, 160
1. In General, 160
2. Depositing Money, 161
G. Effect of Subsequent Demand and Refusal to Pay, 161
V. Effect of Tender, i62
A. In General, 162
B. On Collateral Benefits, Securities, and Liens, 163
C. As Admission of Liability, 163
D. With Regard to Refusal or Acceptance, 164
E. Tender of Specific Articles, 165
VI. PLEADING, PAYING MONEY INTO COURT, AND PROCEDURE THERE-
UPON, 166
A. Pleading Tender, 166
1. Necessity, 166
2. Nature of Plea, 166
3. Manner of Pleading, and Sufficiency of Allegations, 167
a. In General, 167
b. Particular Allegations, 168
(i) Place, 168
(ii) Time, 168
(hi) Medium and Amount, 168
(iv) Continuing Readiness, 169
(v) Profert In Curia, 169
4. Joinder of Pleas, 170
B. Demurrer, Reply, or Motion to Make Definite, 170
G. Paying Money Into Court, 171
1. Necessity, 171
a. In General, 171
b. Where Lien Is Discharged by Tender, 172
c. Effect of Failure to Pay, 173
d. Waiver, 173
2. Time of Payment, 174
3. Arrwunt to Be Paid, 174
4. Medium of Payment, 174
5. Notice of Payment, 175
6. To Whom Paid, 175
7. Effect, 176
8. Withdrawal of Money Paid in, 176
a. By Tenderer, 176
b. By Tenderee, 177
D. Evidence, 178
E. TriaZ, 179
F. Judgment, 180
CROSS-REFBRENCXiS
For Matters Relating to:
Deposit LQ Court in General, see Deposits in Gourt, 13 Cyc. 1030.
Legal Tender as Medium of Payment, see Payment, 30 Gyc. 1212.
TENDER [38 Cye.] 129
For Matters Relating to — (continued)
Offer of Judgment :
In General, see Judgments, 23 Cyc. 729.
Effect on Liability For Costs, see Costs, 11 Cyc. 71.
Payment Into Court in Admiralty Suit, see Admiralty, 1 Cyc. 870.
Tender:
As Affecting Right to Exercise Power of Sale, see Mortgages, 27 Cyc. 1452.
As Condition Precedent to:
Accrual of Right of Action as Affecting Statute of Limitations, see
Limitations op Actions, 25 Cyc. 1210.
Action:
By Buyer For Breach of Warranty on Sale of Goods, see Sales, 35
Cyc. 435.
By Purchaser of Land For Breach of Contract, see Vendor and
Purchaser.
By Servant, see Master and Servant, 26 Cyc. 997.
For Breach of Contract, see Sales, 35 Cyc. 619.
For Conversion, see Trover and Conversion.
For Damages, see Sales, 35 Cyc. 584.
For Possession, see Vendor and Purchaser.
For Price, see Sales, 35 Cyc. 531, 607; Vendor and Purchaser.
For Specific Performance, see Specific Performance, 36 Cyc. 701.
On Administration Bond, see Executors and Administrators, 18
Cyc. 1286.
To Attack Tax Title, see Taxation, 37 Cyc. 1496.
To Declare and Enforce Trust, see Trusts.
To Recover Money Had and Received, see Money Received, 27 Cyc.
870.
To Redeem From Execution Sale, see Executions, 17 Cyc. 1335.
Equitable Relief, see Equity, 16 Cyc. 140.
Relief Against:
Assessment, see Municipal Corporations, 28 Cyc. 1187; Taxation,
37 Cyc. 1135.
Release, see Release, 34 Cyc. 1071.
Usury, see Usury.
Rescission of Contract, see Sales, 35 Cyc. 150; Vendor and Purchaser.
As Defense to Action on:
Bond, see Bonds, 5 Cyc. 818.
Contract, see Contracts, 9 Cyc. 694.
As Discharge of Surety, see Principal and Surety, 32 Cyc. 172.
As Ground For Restraining Foreclosure of Mortgage, see Mortgages, 27
Cyc. 1455, 1538.
As Prerequisite to Equitable Relief, see Equity, 16 Cyc. 140.
Averment as to in:
Bill, Complaint, Declaration, or Petition in Suit :
For Mortgage Foreclosure, see Mortgages, 27 Cyc. 1855.
For Specific Performance, see Specific Performance, 36 Cyc. 779.
In Action on Contract, see Contracts, 9 Cyc. 723.
Before Suit For Specific Performance by:
Vendee, see Specific Performance, 36 Cyc. 702.
Vendor, see Specific Performance, 36 Cyc. 701.
By Purchaser as Condition Precedent to Rescission of Contract of Sale of:
Goods, see Sales, 35 Cyc. 150.
Land, see Vendor and Purchaser.
By Vendor to Obtain Reconveyance of Mineral Lands, see Mines and
Minerals, 27 Cyc. 681 note 25.
[9]
130 [38 Cyc.J TENDER
For Matters Relating to — {continued)
Tender — {continued)
Distress For Rent After, as Wrongful, Distress, see Landlord and Tenant,
24 Cyc. 1326.
Effect as Extinguishing Lien on Trespassing Animal For Injuries Done,
see Animals, 2 Cyc. 407.
Effect on Liability:
For Costs:
In General, see Costs, 11 Cyc. 78, 82.
In Action to Redeem From Mortgage Foreclosure, see Moetgages,
27 Cyc. 1865.
In Admiralty Suit, see Admiralty, 1 Cyc. 909.
In Suit For Salvage, see Salvage, 35 Cyc. 788.
For Interest on Award in Condemnation Proceedings, see Eminent
Domain, 15 Cyc. 933.
For Loss or Injury to Goods Shipped, see Shipping, 36 Cyc. 259.
For Subsequent Interest, see Interest, 22 Cyc. 1555.
Of Executor or Administrator For Interest, see Executors and Admin-
istrators, 18 Cyc. 639.
In Admiralty Proceedings, see Admiralty, 1 Cyc. 870.
Necessity For in Proceedings:
To Recover Goods Sold Conditionally, see Sales, 35 Cyc. 700.
To Redeem From Mortgage Foreclosure, see Mortgages, 27 Cyc. 1830.
Of Amount:
Due on Usurious Note as Condition Precedent to Relief, see Usury.
Of Assessment For Public Improvement as Condition Precedent to
Relief Against, see Municipal Corporations, 28 Cyc. 1187.
Of Lien or Indebtedness on Property as Condition Precedent to Action
For Conversion, see Trover and Conversion.
Required to Redeem From Chattel Mortgage, see Chattel Mortgages,
7 Cyc. 88.
Required to Redeem From Execution Sale, see Executions, 17 Cyc.
1332.
Required to Redeem From Tax-Sale, see Taxation, 37 Cyc. 1411.
Of Bribe as Element of Bribery, see Bribery, 5 Cyc. 1039.
Of Compensation For Private Property Taken For Public Use, see Eminent
Domain, 15 Cyc. 783.
Of Consideration as Prerequisite to Right to Attack Release, see Release,
34 Cyc. 1071.
Of Conveyance as Condition Precedent to Action For:
Possession of Land Sold, see Vendor and Purchaser.
Price of Land, see Vendor and Purchaser.
Specific Performance, see Specific Performance, 36 Cyc. 701.
Of Deed, see Vendor and Purchaser.
Of Demi-Mark in Pleading to Writ of Right, see Real Actions, 33 Cyc.
1546.
Of Fare:
For Transportation, see Carriers, 6 Cyc. 547.
To Avoid Ejectment From Train, see Carriers, 6 Cyc. 553.
Of Freight Charges by Shipper, see Carriers, 6 Cyc. 496; Shipping, 36
Cyc. 307.
Of Goods as Condition Precedent to Action by Seller For:
Damages, see Sales, 35 Cyc. 584.
Price or Value, see Sales, 35 Cyc. 531.
Of Indemnity in Actions Relating to and on Lost Instruments, see Lost
Instruments, 25 Cyc. 1617.
TENDER [38 CycJ 131
For Matters Relating to — (continued)
Tender — (continvsd)
Of Insurance Premium or Assessment to Prevent Forfeiture, see Fire
Insurance, 19 Cyc. 776; Life Insurance, 25 Cyc. 841; Mutual Bene-
fit Insurance, 29 Cyc. 178.
Of Issue", see Pleading, 31 Cyc. 672.
Of Judgment Affecting Right of Extra Allowance of Costs, see Costs,
11 Cyc. 140.
Of Juror:
As Waiver of Right to Object or Challenge, see Juries, 24 Cyc. 322.
Peremptory. Challenge After, see Juries, 24 Cyc. 364.
Of Money or Other Performance of Obligation as Condition Precedent to
Replevin, see Replevin, 34 Cyc. 1402.
Of Part Payment, see Frauds, Statute of, 20 Cyc. 252.
Of Payment of:
Distributive Share, see Executors and Administrators, 18 Cyc. 623.
Judgment as Satisfaction Thereof, see Judgments, 23 Cyc. 1466.
Mortgage Debt, see Chattel Mortgages, 7 Cyc. 67; Mortgages, 27
Cyc. 1406.
Negotiable Instrument, see Commercial Paper, 7 Cyc. 1017.
Price of Goods Sold, Effect as to Transfer of Title, see Sales, 35 Cyc. 331.
Of Performance as Condition Precedent to Action by:
Buyer of Goods For Breach of Contract, see Sales, 35 Cyc. 619.
Buyer of Goods to Recover Price Paid, see Sales, 35 Cyc. 607.
Seller of Goods For Price or Value Thereof, see Sales, 35 Cyc. 531.
Of Performance by Buyer of Goods, Allegations in Declaration, Complaint,
or Petition in Action For Breach of Contract, see Sales, 35 Cyc. 624.
Of Performance of:
Agreement of Accord, see Accord and Satisfaction, 1 Cyc. 314, 315.
Contract For Services as Condition Precedent to Action by Servant For
Wrongful Discharge, see Master and Servant, 26 Cyc. 997.
Services bv Servant, see Master and Servant, 26 Cyc. 1018.
Of Price of : "
Goods Sold, see Sales, 35 Cyc. 271.
Land Sold, see Vendor and Purchaser.
Of Principal, Suspension of Interest by, see Interest, 22 Cyc. 1555.
Of Property Alleged to Have Been Converted, see Trover and Conversion.
Of Purchase-Money For Goods Sold Conditionally, see Sales, 35 Cyc. 671.
Of Refunding Bond as Condition Precedent to Action oh Administration
Bond, see Executors and Administrators, 18 Cyc. 1286.
Of Rent, see Landlord and Tenant, 24 Cyc. 1191.
Of Services of Pilot, see Pilots, 30 Cyc. 1615.
Of Taxes:
As Discharging Lien, see Taxation, 37 Cyc. 1148.
As Prerequisite to Injunction or Other Relief Against Assessment, see
Taxation, 37 Cyc. 1271.
Or Purchase-Money as Condition Precedent to Attack on Tax Title, see
Taxation, 37 Cyc. 1496.
Of Witness' Fees and Expenses on Service of Subpoena, see Witnesses.
I. DEFINITION.
Tender is an offer to perform a contract, or to pay money, coupled with a
present ability to do the act.^ It imports, not merely the readiness and the
1. Cockrill v. Kirkpatriek, 9 Mo. 697, 704. the debtor to discharge himself from his ob-
Other definitions are: "A means given to ligation, bv placing the thing to be delivered
[I]
132 [38 Cye.J
TENDER
ability to pay or perform at the time and place mentioned in the contract, but
also the actual production of the thing to be paid or delivered over, and an offer
of it to the person to whom the tender is to be made; ^ and the act of tender must
be such that it needs only acceptance by the one to whom it is made to complete
the transaction. It is the act of one party in offering that which he admits to be
due and owing, but which does not meet the approval of the other party, and
therefore is not accepted and appropriated by him in satisfaction of the demand.'
The term therefore implies a refusal.*
11. Necessity or Availability.
A. Necessity. Where acts to be performed by the parties to a contract
are mutual and dependent, or where the existence of a right in one claiming it is
dependent upon the performance of duties on his part, as by the payment of
money or .delivery of goods, tender of performance by him is necessary to enable
him to sue to enforce the right.^
at the risk of the creditor.'' Smith v. Rich-
ardson, 11 Rob. (La.) 516, 520.
"An offer to pay a debt or to perform a
duty." 9 Bacon Abr. tit. " Tender."
"An offer by a debtor to his creditor of tlie
amount of the debt." Rapalje & L. L. Diet.
[quoted in Salinas v. Ellis, 26 S. C. 337, 344,
2 S. E. 121].
" The offer of a sum of money in satisfac-
tion of a debt or claim by producing and
showing the amount to the creditor, or party
claiming and expressing verbally a willing-
ness to pay it." Tompkins v. Batie, 11
Nebr. 147, 152, 7 N. W. 747, 38 Am. Rep. 361
[citing Worcester Diet.].
"An offer to perform an act which the
partv offering is bound to perform." Mc-
Claiii V. Batton, 50 W. Va. 121, 130, 40 S. E.
509.
As applicable to the case of mutual and
concurrent promises, the word " tender " does
not mean the same kind of offer as when it
is used in reference to the payment or offer
to pay an ordinary debt due in money, where
the money is offered to the creditor who is
entitled to receive it and nothing further re-
mains to be done, and the transaction is
completed and ended; but it only means a
readiness and willingness, accompanied with
an ability on the part of one of the parties,
to do the acts which the agreement requires
him to perform, provided the other will con-
currently do the things which he is required
by it to do, and a notice by the former to
the latter of such readiness. Such readi-
ness, ability, and notice are sufficient evi-
dence of, and indeed imply, an offer or ten-
der in the ordinary sense of the term. It
is not an absolute unconditional offer to do
or transfer anything at all events, but it is,
in its nature, conditional only, and depend-
ent on, and to be performed only in case of,
the readiness of the other party to perform
his part of the agreement. Smith v. Lewis,
26 Conn. 110, 119 [quoted in Clark v. Weis,
87 111. 438, 441, 29 Am. Rep. 60 (citing as
illustrations Smith v. Lamb, 26 111. 396, 79
Am. Dec. 381; Hough v. Rawson, 17 111.
588)].
2. Holmes v. Holmes, 12 Barb. (N. Y.)
137, 144 [affirmed in 9 N. Y. 525].
P]
The term imports more than a mere offer,
however, for there may be an offer without
a tender. Sewell v. Willcox, 5 Rob. (La.)
83. See infra, II, B, 2, 4.
3. Barker v. Brink, 5 Iowa 481, 484.
4. Mohn V. Stoner, 11 Iowa 30, 31; Barker
i: Brink, 5 Iowa 481, 484.
Payment distinguished. — Payment implies
an acceptance and appropriation of that
which is offered by one party to the other;
whereas tender is the act of one party, in
offering that which he admits to be due and
owing, but which is not accepted by the
creditor. The tender does not discharge or
satisfy the debt, whereas payment does
Barker v. Brink, 5 Iowa 481, 484.
Payment into court distinguished. — The
payment of money into court, under order,
is more than a simple tender. A tender
is an offer to pay by the debtor before
suit, and cannot be made after suit brought.
It is purely ex parte. If it is not accepted
the debtor must retain his money, and if
established on plea, the only effect is to stop
interest thenceforward on the amount ten-
dered. But a payment into court is different.
It is not ex parte, but done by order of the
court, which represents both parties, and
whose orders bind plaintiff as well as de-
fendant. Black V. Rose, 14 S. C. 274, 277
[quoted in Salinas v. Ellis, 26 S. C. 337, 345,
2 S. E. 121].
5. Colorado. — People v. Henderson, 12
Colo. 369, 21 Pac. 144; Wason v. Major, 10
Colo. App. 181, 50 Pac. 741.
Illinois. — Briscoe v. Allison, 43 111. 291.
Indiana. — Bundy v. Summerland, 142 Ind.
92, 41 N. E. 322; Smith v. Rude Bros. Mfg.
Co., 131 Ind. 150, 30 N. E. 947; Hyland v.
Central Iron Co., 129 Ind. 68, 28 N. E. 308,
13 L. R. A. 515; Hyland f. Brazil Block Coal
Co., 128 Ind. 335, 26 N. E. 672; Logansport
V. Case, 124 Ind. 254, 24 N. E. 88 ; Morrison
t: Jacoby, 114 Ind. 84, 14 N. E. 546, 15 N. E.
806 ; South Bend t\ Notre Dame, 69 Ind. 344.
Iowa. — Morrison v. Hershire, 32 Iowa 271.
Kansas. — Garnett Bank v. Ferris, 55 Kan.
120, 39 Pac. 1042; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v.
Atchison County, 54 Kan. 781, 39 Pac. 1039;
Wilson r. Longendyke, 32 Kan. 267, 4 Pac.
361; Smith v. Woodleaf, 21 Kan. 717; Haga-
TENDER
[38 Cye.] 133
B. Demands Upon Which Tender May Be Made. At common law,
wherever there is a debt or duty due and the thing due is either certain, or cap-
able of being made so by mere computation,' or where a given sum in money is
to be paid in specific articles, or where payment is to be made in specific articles
or services at a stipulated rate,' a tender of the debt or duty may be made; and
a tender may also be made where the damages have been liquidated by an award,'
and where the damages, in case plaintiff establishes a right to any damages, can
be merely nominal, as far as the damages are concerned a judicial inquiry is
entirely unnecessary, and a tender of such damages may be made." But at
common law a tender is not allowed where the amount of the compensation is
unliquidated, whether the right to the compensation is based upon a breach
of a contract, or is one arising out of a tort,^° This rule has been changed by
man v. Cloud County Com'rs, 19 Kan. 394;
Lawrence v. Killam, 11 Kan. 499.
Kentucky. — Thompson v. Lexington, 104
Ky. 165, 46 S. W. 481, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 457.
Louisiana. — Bryant i: Stothart, 46 La.
Ann. 485, 15 So. 76.
Maine. — Bisbee v. Ham, 47 Me. 543.
Maryland. — Dentzel v. City, etc., R. Co.,
90 Md 434, 45 Atl. 201; Allegany County
V. Union Min Co., 61 Md. 545.
Massachusetts. — Mansfield v. Hodgdon,
147 Mass. 304, 17 N. E. 644; Thurston v.
Blanchard, 22 Pick. 18, 33 Am. Dec. 700;
Conner v. Henderson, 15 Mass. 319, 8 Am.
Dec. 103.
Michigan. — Tisdale v. Auditor-Gen., 85
Mich 261, 48 N. W. 568; Albany, etc., Min.
Co V. Auditor-Gen., 37 Mich. 391; Pillsbury
f. Humphrey, 26 Mich. 245; Merrill v.
Humphrey, 24 Mich. 170; Conway v. Wa-
verly Tp. Bd., 15 Mich. 257.
Mississippi. — Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Mose-
ley, 52 Miss. 127.
tievo York. — McMichael v. Kilmer, 76 N. Y.
36; Nelson v. Plimpton Fireproof Elevating
Co., 55 N. Y. 480; Dunham v. Pettee, 8 N. Y.
508; Tonge v. Newell, 16 N. Y. App. Div.
500, 44 N. Y. Suppl. 906; Anderson v. Sher-
wood, 56 Barb. 66; Crist v. Armour, 34 Barb.
378; Porter v. Rose, 12 Johns. 209, 7 Am.
Dec. 306. See also Allen v. Corby, 59 N. Y.
App. Div. 1, 69 N. Y. Suppl. 7.
North Dakota. — Douglas v. Fargo, 13 N. D.
467, 101 N. W. 919.
Oklahoma. — State Nat. Bank v. Carson,
(1897) 50 Pac. 990.
Texas. — Schloss v. Atchison, etc., R. Co.,
85 Tex. 601, 22 S. W. 1041; McPherson v.
Johnson, 69 Tex. 484, 6 S. W. 798; Murray
V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 63 Tex. 407, 51 Am. Rep.
650; Scogins v. Perry, 46 Tex. Ill; De la
Garza v. Booth, 28 Tex. 478, 91 Am. Dec.
328; De Witt v. Dunn, 15 Tex. 106.
Wisconsin. — ^Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. v. Lin-
coln County, 67 Wis. 478, 30 N. W. 619.
United fitates. — ^Albuquerque Nat. Bank v.
Perea, 147 U. S. 87, 13 S. Ct. 194, 37 L. ed.
91; German Nat. Bank v. Kimball, 103 U. S.
732, 26 L. ed. 469; Gay v. Alter, 102 U. S.
79, 26 L. ed. 48.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit./ " Tender," § 5.
6. Green v. Shurtliff, 19 Vt. 592; Solomon
V. Bewicke, 2 Taunt. 317.
A tender may be pleaded in an action
upon a bare covenant for the payment of
money. .Johnson v. Clay, 1 Moore C. P. 200,
7 Taunt. 486, 2 E. C. L. 459.
7. Ferguson v. Hogan, 25 Minn. 135.
8. Taylor v. Brooklyn El. R. Co., 7 N. Y.
Suppl. 625 [afprmed in 119 N. Y. 561, 23
N. E. 1106].
9. Cernahan v. Chrisler, 107 Wis. 645, 83
N. W. 778.
10. Colorado. — Denver, etc., R. Co. v.
Harp, 6 Colo. 420.
ZZiijiois.— Gregory v. Wells, 62 111. 232;
Cilley V. Hawkins, 48 111. 308 ; Bock v. Wei-
gant, 5 111. App. 643.
Massachusetts.— liavrrence v. GifiFord, 17
Pick. 366.
Missouri. — Joyner v. Bentley, 21 Mo. App.
26.
Pennsylvania. — Roberts v. Beatty, 2 Penr.
& W. 63, 21 Am. Dec. 410.
Texas. — Breen v. Texas, etc., R. Co., SO
Tex. 43. ,
Vermont. — McDaniels v. Rutland Bank,
29 Vt. 230, 70 Am. Dec. 406 ; Green v. Shurt-
liflF, 19 Vt. 592.
England. — Davys v. Richardson, 21 Q. B. D.
202, 57 L. J. Q. B. 409, 59 L. T. Rep. N. S.
765, 36 Wklv. Rep. 728; Dearies v. Barrett,
2 A. & E. 82, 3 Dowl. P. C. 13, 4 N. & M. 200,
29 E. C. L. 58, 111 Eng. Reprint 32.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 3.
Illustrations. — So a tender cannot be made
of a sum as compensation for the breach of
a contract to lease land (Cilley v. Hawkins,
48 111. 308) ; for the sale of land, or to make
repairs (Dearies v. Barrett, 2 A. & E. 82,
3 Dowl. P. C. 13, 4 N. & M. 200, 29 E. C. L.
58, 111 Eng. Reprint 32]; or for the breach
of a contract of marriage, or of a bond, or,
in short, of anything save the payment of
a definite sum of money, where, . after the
breach, the situation of the parties or the
value of the thing or duty is uncertain, or
has changed or is subject to a change (see
Green v. Shurtliff, 19 Vt. 592).
After a breach of contract to deliver a
given quantity of specific articles, unless the
damages are capable of being reduced to a
certainty by computation, a tender cannot
be made, either of the articles or of money
as damages. Day v. Lafferty, 4 Ark. 450.
A promissory note payable in " current
bank notes " ia not a contract to pay money,
and after a breach, the amount due being
indefinite, a tender cannot be made. See
McDowell V. Keller, 4 Coldw. (Tenn.) 258.
[II. B]
134: [38 Cye.]
TENDER
statute in many jurisdictions; the general effect of which is to permit defendant
to relieve himself from liability for costs in an action for unliquidated damages by
tendering sufficient amends for the injury complained of."
C. When Failure to Make Tender Excused or Waived. A formal
tender is .unnecessary if the party to whom performance is due be absent from .
the place of performance, in those cases where his presence is necessary; " nor
is' a formal tender necessary if, at the time for performance, the party to whom
performance is due fails " or refuses " to perform on his part, unless a request
11. See the statutes of the several states.
And see the following cases:
Colorado. — Leis v. Hodgson, 1 Colo. 393.
Illinois. — Frantz v. Rose, 89 111. 590 (con-
struing Rev. St. (1874) c. 79, § 51); Dun-
bar V. Be Boer, 44 111. App. 615; Beach v.
Jeffrey, 1 111. App. 283.
Maine. — Brown v. Neal, 36 Me. 407, con-
struing Rev. St. c. 115, § 22, as amended.
Massachusetts. — Viall v. Carpenter, 16
Gray 285, construing Rev. St. u. 105, § 12.
New York. — Clement v. New York Cent.,
etc., R. Co., 9 N. Y. Suppl. 601 (construing
Code Civ. Proc. § 731); Clark v. Hallock,
16 Wend. 607; Slack v. Brown, 13 Wend.
390; People v. Sternburg, 1 Den. 635 (con-
struing 2 Rev. St. § 21).
Fermoret.— Green v. Shurtliff, 19 Vt. 592;
Hart i;. Skinner, 16 Vt. 138, 42 Am. Dec.
500.
See also Costs, 11 Cyc. 71 e* seq.
Such statutes are strictly construed, being
in derogation of the common law. See Law-
rence V. Giflford, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 366; Joy-
ner v. Bentley, 21 Mo. App. 26. Thus a
statute allowing a tender of amends where a
trespass is committed through negligence or
mistake was held not to apply where the
entry upon the land was made in pursuance
of defective proceedings for laying out a road
(Brown v. Neal, 36 Me. 407. See also Viall
V. Carpenter, 16 Gray (Mass.) 285), and
conversion for the wrongful delivery of
goods was held not to fall within the stat-
utes authorizing a tender of " damages for
a casual or involuntary injury to property."
Clement v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 9
N. Y. Suppl. 601.
12. Lehman v. Collins, 69 Ala. 127; Smith
■V. Ryan, 88 Ky. 636, 11 S. W. 647, 11 Ky.
L. Rep. 128; Southworth v. Smith, 7 Gush.
(Mass.) 391 ; Gilmore v. Holt, 4 Pick. (Mass.)
258; Hale v. Patton, 60 N. Y. 233, 19 Am.
Rep. 168; Houbie r. Volkening, 49 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 169; Noyes v. Clark, 7 Paige (N. Y.)
179, 32 Am. Dec. 620. But see Crawford v.
Paine, 19 Iowa 172, holding that the absence
of the creditor from the state was no excuse
for the failure to tender payment, inasmuch
as under Rev. St. § 1816, a debtor may make
a tender by letter.
But ignorance of the creditor's place of res-
idence is no excuse for not making a tender.
Samuel v. Allen, 98 Cal. 406, 33 Pac. 273;
Sage v. Ranney, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 532.
It is the debtor's duty to make inquiries
for the creditor of those most likely to know
his whereabouts. Lehman v. Moore, 93 Ala.
186, 9 So. 590; Bancroft v. Sawin, 143 Mass.
144, 9 N. E. 539.
[II, B]
13. Allen v. Pennell, 51 Iowa 537, 2 N. W.
385.
14. Alabama. — Root f. Johnson, 99 Ala.
90, 10 So. 293 ; Henry v. Allen, 93 Ala. 197,
9 So. 579 ; McKleroy v. Tulane, 34 Ala. 78.
California.— C\ea.Ty v. Folger, (1893) 33
Pac. 877; Sheplar v. Green, 96 Cal. 218, 31
Pac. 42.
Colorado. — Montelius v. Atherton, 6 Colo.
224.
Connecticut. — Ashburn l'. Poulter, 35 Conn.
553.
Illinois. — Scott v. Beach, 172 111. 273, 50
N. E. 196; Dulin v. Prince, 124 111. 76, 16
N. E. 242; Lyman v. Gedney, 114 111. 388,
29 N. E. 282, 55 Am. Rep. 871 ; Engesette v.
McGilvray, 63 111. App. 461 ; Nathan i\ Reh-
kopf, 57 111. App. 212; Bucklen v. HaSterlik,
51 111. App. 132.
Indiana. — Adams Express Co. v. Harris,
120 Ind. 73, 21 N. E. 340, 16 Am. St. Rep.
315, 7 L. R. A. 214; Blair v. Hamilton, 48
Ind. 32.
loioa. — ^Veeder v. McMurray, 70 Iowa 118,
29 N. W. 818; Hopwood f. Corbin, 63 Iowa
218, 18 N. W. 911; Williams v. Triplett, 3
Iowa 518.
Kansas. — Chinn v. Bretches, 42 Kan. 316,
22 Pac. 426; Thompson v. Warner, 31 Kan.
533, 3 Pac. 339.
Kentucky. — Tyler v. Onzts, 93 Ky. 331, 20
S. W. 256, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 321; Stapp v.
Phelps, 7 Dana 296; Dorsey v. Barbee, Litt.
Sel. Cas. 204, 12 Am. Dec. 296; Tibbs v.
Timberlake, 4 Litt. 12; Dorsey v. Cock, 4
Bibb 45.
Louisiana. — Sonia Cotton Oil Co. v. The
Red River, 106 La. 42, 30 So. 303, 87 Am. St.
Rep. 293; Ware v. Berlin, 43 La. Ann. 534,
9 So. 490.
Maine. — Dinsmore v. Savage, 68 Me. 191;
Mattocks f. Young, 66 Me. 459.
Massachusetts. — Murray v. Mayo, 157
Mass. 248. 31 N. E. 1063; Gilmore v. Holt,
4 Pick. 258.
Michiqan. — Moore v. Smith, 95 Mich. 71,
54 N. W. 701; Lacy v. Wilson, 24 Mich.
479.
Minnesota. — Vaughan v. McCarthy, 59
Minn. 199, 60 N. W. 1075; Long v. Miller,
46 Minn. 13, 48 N. W. 409; Brown v. Eaton,
21 Minn. 409 ; Gill r. Newell, 13 Minn. 462.
Missouri. — Whelan i\ Reilly, 61 Mo. 565;
Deichmann v. Deichmann, 49 Mo. 107 ; Har-
wood V. Diemer, 41 Mo. App. 48; MacDonald
V. Wolflf, 40 Mo. App. 302 ; McManus v. Greg-
ory, 16 Mo. App. 375.
Nebraska. — Graham v. Frazier, 49 Nebr.
90, 68 N. W. 367 : Smith v. Gibson, 25 Nebr.
511, 41 N. W. 360.
TENDER
[38 Cyc] 135
which he has no right to make is complied with," or if he is unable to perform/'
or does or suffers anything to be done with the thing to be delivered by him which
renders certain a failure of performance on his part when the day arrives.'' Simi-
larly a tender is waived where the tenderee makes any declaration which amounts
to a repudiation of the contract, or takes any position which would render a
tender, so long as the position taken by him is maintained, a vain and idle cere-
mony; " as where he expressly declares that he wUl not accept the tender if it is
Feio yorfc.— Blewett v. Baker, 58 N. Y.
611; Morange v. Morris, 3 Abb. Dec. 314, 3
Keyes 48, 32 How. Pr. 178; Simonson v.
Lauck, 105 N. Y. App. Div. 82, 93 N. Y.
Suppl. 965; Allen v. Corby, 59 N. Y. App.
Div. 1, 69 N. Y. Suppl. 7 ; Cleveland f. Eoth-
well, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 14, 66 N. Y. Suppl.
241; Anderson x. Sherwood, 56 Barb. 66;
Stone V. Sprague, 20 Barb. 509; Zeitlin V.
Arkaway, 26 Misc. 761, 56 N. Y. Suppl. 1058.
Oregon. — Clarno V: Grayson, 30 Oreg. Ill,
46 Pac. 426.
Rhode Island. — Lee r. Stone, 21 K. I. 123,
42 Atl. 717.
South Dakota. — McPherson v. Fargo, 10
S. D. 611, 74 N. W. 1057, 66 Am. St. Rep.
723; Brace v. Doble, 3 S. D. 110, 52 N. W.
586.
Tennessee. — Bradford v. Foster, 87 Tenn.
4, 9 S. W. 195.
Texas. — Bluntzer r. Dewees, 79 Tex. 272,
15 S. W. 29 ; Woldert v. Arledge, 4 Tex. Civ.
App. 692, 23 S. W. 1052; Bessling v. Hoyle,
1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 287.
Virginia. — White v. Dobson, 17 Gratt. 262.
West Virginia. — Poling v. Parsons, 38
W. Va. 80, 18 S. E. 379.
Wisconsin. — Maxon v. Gates, 112 Wis. 198,
88 N. W. 54; Hoffman v. Van Diemen, 62
Wis. 362, 21 N. W. 542; Wright V. Young,
6 Wis. 127, 70 Am. Dec. 453.
United States. — Pollock v. Brainard, 26
Fed. 732 ; Calhoun t: Vechio, 4 Fed. Cas. No.
2,310, 3 Wash. 165.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," §§ 6, 7.
Time of refusal. — The refusal must be at
or before the time of performance, to con-
stitute a waiver. Columbia Bank v. Hagner,
1 Pet. (U. S.) 455, 7 L. ed. 219. See also
Newman r. Baker, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 187.
15. Ford V. Stroud, 150 N. C. 362, 64
5. E. 1; Amsden v. Atwood, 68 Vt. 322, 35
Atl. 311; Dickinson i\ Dutcher, Brayt. (Vt.)
104; Jones v. Tarlton, 1 Dowl. P. C. N. S.
625, 6 Jur. 348, 11 L. J. Exch. 267, 9
M. & W. 675.
As ty refusing, until an unlawful claim is
paid, to receive any part of tender. North-
ern Colorado Irr. Co. v. Richards, 22 Colo.
450, 45 Pac. 423 (where the tenderee de-
manded the payment of certain illegal royal-
ties) ; Gorham v. Farson, 119 111. 425, 10
N. E. 1 ; Indiana Bond Co. v. Jameson, 24
Ind. App. 8, 56 N. E.. 37 ; Hamilton v. Mc-
Laughlin, 145 Mass. 20, 12 N. E. 424 ; Hoyt
V. Sprague, 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 497. But see
Bolton V. Gifford, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 140, 100
S. W. 210.
16. Indiana. — Nesbit v. Miller, 125 Ind.
106, 25 N. E. US,
Iowa. — Auxier v. Taylor, 102 Iowa 673, 72
N. W. 291.
Massachusetts. — Lowe v. Harwood, 139
Mass. 133, 29 N. E. 538.
Minnesota. — Taylor v. Read, 19 Minn. 372;
Bennett f. Phelps, 12 Minn. 326.
New York. — Baumann v. Plnckney, 118
N. Y. 604, 23 N. E. 916; Hartley v. James,
50 N. Y. 38; Delavan v. Duncan, 49 N. Y.
485; Bunge v. Koop, 48 N. Y. 225, 8 Am.
Rep. 546; Morange v. Morris, 3 Abb. Dec.
314, 3 Keyes 48, 32 How. Pr. 178; Beier v.
Spaulding, 92 Hun 388, 36 N. Y. Suppl.
1056; Whitaker v. Burrows, 71 Hun 478, 24
N. Y. Suppl. 1011; Karker v. Haverly, 50
Barb. 79; Wheaton v. Baker, 14 Barb. 594;
Marshall v. Wenninger, 20 Misc. 527, 46
N. Y. Suppl. 670; Baker v. Robbins, 2 Den.
136; Foote v. West; 1 Den. 544; Lawrence
V. Taylor, 5 Hill 107.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," §§ 6, 7.
17. Iowa. — Auxier v. Taylor, 102 Iowa
673, 72 N. W. 291.
Massachusetts. — Lowe v. Harwood, 139
Mass. 133, 29 N. E. 538.
Minnesota. — Wyvell v. Jones, 37 Minn. 68,
33 N. W. 43; Bennett v. Phelps, 12 Minn.
326.
New York. — Davis v. Van Wyck, 64 Hun
186, 18 N. Y. Suppl. 885.
Pennsylvania. — Scott v. Patterson, 1 Pa.
Dist. 603.
18. Georgia. — Ansley v. Hightower, 120
Ga. 719, 48 S. E. 197.
Indiana. — Blair v. Hamilton, 48 Ind. 32.
Iowa. — Williams v. Triplett, 3 Iowa 518.
Kansas. — Piazzek v. Harman, 79 Kan. 855,
98 Pac. 771.
Kentucky. — Dorsey v. Barbee, Litt. Sel.
Cas. 204, 12 Am. Dec. 296; Dorsey v. Cock,
4 Bibb 45.
Louisiana. — State v. Webstei- Parish Po-
lice Jury, 120 La. 163, 45 So. 47, 124 Am.
St. Rep. 430, 14 L. R. A. N. S. 794.
Maine. — Duffy v. Patten, 74 Me. 396;
Mattocks V. Young, 66 Me. 459.
Minnesota. — Gill v. Newell, 13 Minn. 462.
Missouri. — Deichmann v. Deichmann, 49
Mo. 107.
Nebraska. — Graham i\ Frazier, 49 Nebr.
90, 68 N. W. 367.
Pennsylvania. — Hampton r. Speckenagle,
9 Serg. & R. 212, 11 Am. Dec. 704.
South Dakota. — McPherson v. Fargo, 10
S. D. 611, 74 S. W. 1057, 66 Am. St. Rep.
723.
Washington. — Weinberg v. Naher, 51
Wash. 591, 99 Pac. 736, 22 L. R. A. N. S. 956.
United States. — Columbia Bank v. Hag-
ner, 1 Pet. 455, 7 L. ed. 219.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tender," § 48.
The position taken by the unwilling party
must be maintained until the time for per-
formance. Scribner t. Schenkel, 128 Cal.
[II, C]
136 [38 Cye.]
TENDER
made/' or in any way obstructs or prevents a tender/" as by declaring positively
that nothing is due him," by admitting that a tender would be fruitless/^ by
declaring the contract to be at an end/^ or in a threatening tone ordering plaintiff
off the premises.^* But in any case before it can be said that a formal tender is
waived, the tenderee must have placed himself in such position as would make
a tender an unnecessary act.^^ And a plaintiff, before he can recover damages
for the breach, or what he has parted with under the contract, must show, not
only the facts constituting the waiver of the formal tender, but that he was able
and willing, at the time fixed, to perform on his part,^' except in those cases where
a tender is rendered unnecessary by the previous declaration, act, or omission
of the other party." A formal technical tender is not dispensed with by a mere
assertion, without more, of a lien or claim in excess of the actual amount due,
for a tender of the proper sum might be accepted.^* There cannot be a waiver
unless the tenderee is present and has an opportunity to object to the tender,^"
nor can there be a waiver when he is present, if the facts are not disclosed to him.'°
250, 60 Pac. 860; Crist P. Armour, 34 Barb.
(N. Y.) 378.
19. Georgia. — Arnold v. Empire Mut.
Annuity, etc., Ins. Co., 3 Ga. App. 685, 60
S. E. 470.
Illinois. — Gillespie v. Fulton Oil, etc., Co.,
236 111. 188, 86 N. E. 219.
Indiana. — Blair f. Hamilton, 48 Ind. 32.
loica. — Williams v. Triplett, 3 Iowa 518.
Kentucky. — New York L. Ins. Co. r. Clop-
ton, 7 Bush 179, 3 Am. Rep. 290; Dorsey v.
Barbdee, Litt. Sel. Cas. 204, 12 Am. Dee.
296 ; Tibbs f. Timberlake, 4 Litt. 12 ; Dorsey
V. Cock, 4 Bibb 45.
Maine.— Duffy v. Patten, 74 Me. 396 ; Mat-
tocks V. Young, 66 Me. 459.
Maryland. — Buel v. Pumphrey, 2 Md. 261,
56 Am. Dec. 714.
Massachusetts. — Oilman v. Gary, 198
Mass. 318, 84 N. E. 312.
Michigan. — Witt v. Dersham, 146 Mich.
68, 109 N. W. 25.
Missouri. — See Austen v. St. Louis Tran-
sit Co., 115 Mo. App. 146, 91 S. W. 450.
Neio Jersey. — Trenton St. R. Co. v. Law-
lor, 74 N. J. Eq. 828, 71 Atl. 234, 74 Atl.
668.
New York. — Simonson v. Lauck, 105 N. Y.
App. Div. 82, 93 N. Y. Suppl. 965; Klinck
V. Kelly, 63 Barb. 622; Vaupell v. Wood-
ward, 2 Sandf. Ch. 143.
North Carolina. — ^ Martin v. Fayetteville
Bank, 131 N. C. 121, 42 S. E. 558.
West Virginia. — Poling v. Parsons, 38
W. Va. 80, 18 S. E. 379 ; Koon v. Snodgrass,
18 W. Va. 320.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 48.
20. Nelson v. Plimpton Fireproof El. Co.,
55 N. Y. 480), Traver v. Halsted, 23 Wend.
(N. Y.) 66; Franohot v. Leach, 5 Cow. (N. Y.)
506 ; Coit i: Ambergate, 7 A. & E. N. S. 127 ;
Hochster v. De la Tour, 2 E. & B. 678, 17
Jur. 972, 22 L. J. Q. B. 455, 1 Wkly. Rep.
469, 75 E. C. L. 678.
As by refusing to render account of what
is due. Roby «. Skinner, 34 Me. 270; Mc-
Sweeney v. Kay, 15 Grant Ch. (U. C.)
432.
Rendering a false account will excuse ten-
der. Meaher v. Howes, (Me. 1887) 10 Atl.
460.
[II, C]
Declining an offer of immediate payment
on an offer to pay then or at a future time
was held to be equivalent to a tender. U. S.
Life Ins. Co. v. Lesser, 126 Ala. 568, 28 So.
646.
21. Lacy v. Wilson, 24 Mich. 479.
22. Ronaldson, etc., Co. v. Bynum, 122 La.
6C7, 48 So. 152 ; Jackson v. Jacob, 3 Bing. N.
Cas. 869, 3 Hodges 219, 6 L. J. C. P. 315, 5
Scott 79, 32 E. C. L. 399.
23. Oelrichs v. Artz, 21 Md. 524; Post V.
Garrow, 18 Nebr. 682, 26 N. W. 580. See
Union Inv. Assoc, v. Geer, 64 111. App. 648.
24. Williams v. Patrick, 177 Mass. 160, 58
N. E. 583.
25. Jewett f. Earle, 53 N. Y. Super. Ct.
349; Sanford v. Savings, etc., Soc, 80 Fed.
54.
26. Lamar v. Sheppard, 84 Ga. 561, 10
S. E. 1084; Nelson v. Plimpton Fireproof El.
Co., 55 N. Y. 480; Traver v. Halsted,. 23
Wend. (N. Y.) 66; Franchot v. Leach, 5 Cow.
(N. Y.) 506; Robison i\ Tyson, 46 Pa. St.
286; Hochster v. De la Tour, 2 E. & B. 678,
17 Jur. 972, 22 L. J. Q. B. 455, 1 Wkly. Rep.
469, 75 E. C. L. 678.
27. Lowe V. Harwood, 139 Mass. 133, 29
N. E. 538; Brown v. Davis, 138 Mass. 458;
Crist f. Armour, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 378; Frost
V. Clarkson, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 24; Lovelock v.
Franklin, 8 Q. B. 371, 10 Jur. 246, 15 L. J.
Q. B. 146, 55 E. C. L. 371; Ford v. Tilev,
6 B. & C. 325, 9 D. & R. 443, 5 L. J. K. B.
O. S. 169, 30 Rev. Rep. 339, 13 E. C. L. 154.
28. Loewenberg v. Arkansas, etc., R. Co., 56
Ark. 439, 19 S. W. 1051; Indiana Bond Co.
V. Jameson, 24 Ind. App. 8, 56 N. E. 37 ; Hoyt
V. Sprague, 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 497; Llado v.
Morgan, 23 U. C. C. P. 517; McBride v.
Bailey, 6 U. C. C. P. 523 ; Kendal v. Fitzger-
ald, 21 U. C. Q. B. 585; Buffalo, etc., R.
Co. V. Gordon, 16 U. C. Q. B. 283.
But demanding an exorbitant price for re-
pairs done on a ship and giving notice that it
will not be surrendered unless such price be
paid dispenses with a tender. Watson V.
Pearson, 9 Jur. N. S. 501, 8 L. T. Rep. N. S.
395, 11 Wkly. Rep. 702.
29. Sloan t. Petrie, 16 111. 262.
30. Waldron v. Murphy, 40 Mich. 668.
TENDER
[88 Cyc] 13T
III. FORM, Requisites, and Sufficiency.
A. Amount — l. Rule Stated. Nothing short of an offer of everything
that the creditor is entitled to receive is sufficient, and a debtor must at his peril
tender the entire sum due,^' including all necessary expenses incurred or damages
suffered by the creditor by reason of the default of the debtor, ^^ and a mistake in
tendering an amount less than the sum due is the misfortune of the tenderer,^'
and the position of the parties remains the same as if no tender had been made.^*
31. Alabama. — Eversole v. Addington, 156
Ala. 575, 46 So. 849; Smith v. Anders, 21
Ala. 782.
Arkansas. — Burr v. Daugherty, 21 Ark.
559.
California. — Shafer v. Willis, 124 Cal. 36,
56 Pac. 635; San Pedro Lumber Co. v. Rey-
nolds, 111 Cal. 588, 44 Pac. 309.
fjorido.— Chandler v. Wright, 16 Fla. 510.
Georgia. — Smith v. Pileher, 130 Ga. 350,
60 S. E. 1000.
Illinois. — Cheney v. Eoodhouse, 135 111.
257, 25 N. E. 1019 [modifying 32 111. App.
49].
Indiana. — Bailey v. Troxell, 43 Ind. 432.
loioa. — Brandt >". Chicago, etc., R. Co., 26
Iowa 114. See also Metropolitan Nat. Bank
V. Commercial State Bank, 104 Iowa 682, 74
N. W. 26; McWhirter v. Crawford, 104 Iowa
550, 72 N. W. 505, 73 N. W. 1021.
Kansas. — Sanford v. Bartholomew, 33 Kan.
38, 5 Pac. 429.
Kentucky. — Haddix v. Wilson, 3 Bush
523.
Maryland. — Baltimore P. Ins. Co. v. Loney,
20 Md. 20; Fridge v. State, 3 Gill & J. 103,
20 Am. Dec. 463.
Massachusetts. — Chapin t'. Chapin, (1894)
36 N. E. 746; Boyden v. Moore, 5 Mass. 365.
Minnesota. — Kingsley v. Anderson, 103
Minn. 510, 115 N. W. 642, 116 N. W. 112;
Spoon f. Frambach, 83 Minn. 301, 86 N. W.
106; Dickerson v. Hayes, 26 Minn. 100, 1
N. W. 83.
Missouri. — 'Detweiler v. Breckenkamp, 83
Mo. 45.
New Hampshire. — Fisher v. Willard, 20
N. H. 421.
New York. — Graham v. Linden, 50 N. Y.
547; Campbell v. Abbott, 60 Misc. 93, 111
N. Y. Suppl. 782; Wicks v. London and Lan-
cashire Fire Ins. Co., Ill N. Y. Suppl. 65;
Grussy i: Schneider, 50 How. Pr. 134; Mc-
Lean V. Walker, 10 Johns. 471.
Ohio. — Hoppe, etc.. Bottling Co. v. Sacks,
11 Ohio Cir. Ct. 3, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 306.
Pennsylvania. — ^Wolverton's Appeal, 5 Atl.
612; Coleman v. Ross, 46 Pa. St. 180; Lowrie
V. Verner, 3 Watts 317.
Texas. — Henry v. Sansom, (Civ. App.
1896) 36 S. W. 122.
Virginia. — Shobe v. Carr, 3 Munf . 10.
West Virginia. — Shank v. Groff, 45 W. Va.
543, 32 S. E. 248.
United States. — Leiteh v. Union R. Transp.
Co., 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,224.
England.— Dixon v. Clark, 5 C. B. 365, 5
D. & L.' 155, 16 L. J. C. P. 237, 57 E. C. L.
365.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tender," § 21 ef seq.
Attorney's fees. — The amount stipulated in
a note for attorney's fees in case of default
must be tendered to an attorney who holds
the note for collection. Eouyer f. Miller, 16
Ind. App. 519, 44 N. E. 51, 45 N. E. 674.
But an attorney's charges need not be ten-
dered if not stipulated for. Kinton v. Braith-
waite, 5 Dowl. P. C. 101, 2 Gale 48, 5 L. J.
Exch. 165, 1 M. & W. 310, Tyrw. & G. 945.
See also infra, III, A, 2, note 42.
Tender by or to agent. — Where an agent
was sent to tender a certain sum to a, cred-
itor who demanded a larger Sum, and the
agent thereupon offered the balance at his
own risk, the tender was held good. Read
f. Goldring, 2 M. & S. 86, 105 Eng. Reprint
314. But where an agent is sent to demand
a specific sum for an unliquidated claim, an
offer to him of a less sum is not a valid
tender. Chipman v. Bates, 5 Vt. 143.
A tender of a sum actually due on a bond
with a penalty, although less than tlie pen-
alty, is sufficient. Tracy v. Strong, 2 Conn.
659.
32. Michigan. — Stickney v. Parmenter, 35
Mich. 237; Thurber v. Jewett, 3 Mich.
295.
Minnesota. — Wyatt v. Quinby, 65 Minn.
537, 68 N. W. 109; Gorham v. National L.
Ins. Co., 62 Minn. 327, 64 N. W. 906; Nop-
son V. Horton, 20 Minn. 268; Spencer v.
Levering, 8 Minn. 461.
New York. — Equitable L. Assur. Co. v.
Von Glahn, 107 N. Y. 637, 13 N. E. 793;
Hargous v. Lahens, 3 Sandf. 213.
Pennsylvania. — Allen v. Union Bank, 5
Whart. 420.
South Carolina. — MeClendon v. Wells, ' 20
S. C. 514.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 21
et seq.
The insignificance of the deficiency does
not make any difference. A shortage of forty-
one cents has been held fatal. Boyden v.
Moore, 5 Mass. 365. So where the deficiency
was seventy-one cents on a demand amount-
ing to six hundred and forty-nine dollars and
forty-four cents the tender was held not good.
Wright f. Beherns, 39 N. J. L. 413.
33. Shuck V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 73 Iowa
333, 35 N. W. 429 ; Helphrey v. Chicago, etc.,
R. Co., 29 Iowa 480; Brandt i'. Chicago, etc.,
R. Co., 26 Iowa 114; Shotwell v. Dennman,
1 N. J. L. 202; Baker v. Gasque, 3 Strobh.
(S. C.) 25; Patnote v. Sanders, 41 Vt. 66,
98 Am. Dec. 564.
34. Smith v. Pileher, 130 Ga. 350, 60 S. E.
1000.
[Ill, A, 1]
138 [38 Cye.]
TENDER
Furthermore, the tenderer must name the sum which he wishes to tender,'' unless
perhaps the exact sum and interest is tendered so that the tenderee may easily
satisfy himself that the amount is correct.'" Where the amount due is within
the exclusive knowledge of the creditor, and the creditor on demand neglects or
refuses to indicate the correct amount that is due, the debtor may tender so much
as he thinks is justly due, and if less than the true amount, the tender never-
theless will be good; '' and the same rule obtains where the tenderee deprives the
tenderer of the means of ascertaining the exact amount due.''
2. Interest and Costs. The amount tendered must be sufficient to cover
both principal and interest, if the obligation upon which the tender is made carries
interest; '^ and the tender must include interest up to, and including, the last
day of grace; *" and a tender, made after action has been commenced, in order to
bar the rec ivery of subsequent interest and costs, must be of such sum as wHl
cover the amount due, with interest to the day of the tender, and such costs as
have accrued in the action up to that time/' the costs to be included in the sum
3,5. Knight v. Abbot, 30 Vt. 577; Alex-
ander V. Brown, 1 C. & P. 288, 12 E. C. L.
173. But see Conway v. Case, 22 111. 127,
holding that where the bag containing the
money was thrown upon a counter and the
tenderee did not offer to count it, the tender
was sufficient upon the evidence of the
agent who made the offer, to the effect that
it was his belief that there was sufficient
coin in the bag to pay the amount due.
36. State v. Spicer, 4 Houst. (Del.) 100.
37. Shannon v. Howard Mut. Bldg. Assoc,
36 Md. 383; Nelson v. Eobson, 17 Minn. 284.
38. Downing v. Plate, 90 111. 26«.
39. Connecticut. — People's Sav. Bank 1>.
Norwalk, 56 Conn. 547, 16 Atl. 257.
Indiana. — Hamar r. Dimmick, 14 Ind. 105.
Louisiana. — Louisiana Molasses Co. v. Le
Sassier, 52 La. Ann. 1768, 2070, 28 So. 217,
223.
Massachusetts. — Weld «. Elliot Five Cents
Sav. Bank, 158 Mass. 339, 33 N. E. 519;
City Bank v. Cutter, 3 Pick. 414.
New York. — Woodworth v. Morris, 56 Barb.
97; Globe Soap Co. i: Liss, 36 Misc. 199, 73
N. Y. Suppl. 153.
South Carolina. — McClendon v. Wells, 20
S. C. 514.
United States. — Hus v. Kempf, 12 Fed.
Cas. No. 6,943, 10 Ben. 231.
England. — Suse f. Pompe, 8 C. B. N. S.
538, 7 Jur. N. S. 166, 30 L. J. C. P. 75, 3
L. T. Eep. N. S. 17, 9 Wkly. Rep. 15, 98
E. C. L. 538; Gibbs v. Fremont, 9 Exch. 25,
17 Jur. 820, 22 L. J. Exch. 302, 1 Wkly. Eep.
482.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender,'' § 21
et seq.
Waiver of objection.— An objection that in-
terest was not tendered is waived by refusing
the tender solely upon another ground.
Christenson v. Nelson, 38 Greg. 473, 63 Pac.
64)8. And the objection that the sum tendered
did not include interest cannot be raised if
the creditor in his complaint claimed interest
only from a date subsequent to the tender.
Rudulph V. Wagner, 36 Ala. 698.
Usuiious interest need not be tendered.
Shiver v. Johnston, 62 Ala. 37.
40. Smith v. Merchant's, etc., Bank, 14
Ohio Cir. Ct. 199, 8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 176.
[in. A, I]
41. Alabama. — Smith v. Anders, 21 Ala.
782.
Connecticut. — Studwell v. Cooke, 38 Conn.
549.
Illinois. — Sweetland v. Tuthill, 54 111. 215;
McDaniel i: Upton, 45 111. App. 151.
Indiana. — Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Woodard,
159 Ind. 541, 65 N. E. 577.
Iowa. — Young v. McWaid, 57 Iowa lOi; 10
N. W. 291; Barnes v. Greene, 30 Iowa 114;
Freeman v. Fleming, 5 Iowa 460.
Louisiana. — Louisiana Molasses Co. v. Le
Sassier, 52 La. Ann. 2070, 28 So. 217; Mc-
Master v. Brander, 15 La. 206.
Maine. — Marshall v. Wing, 50 Me. 62.
Massachusetts. — Emerson v. Gray, 10 Gray
351; Whipple v. Newton, 17 Pick. 168; Hamp-
shire Manufacturers' Bank v. Billings 17
Pick. 87.
Michigan. — Stickney v. Parmenter, 35
Mich. 237.
Minnesota. — Seeger v. Smith, 74 Minn.
278, 77 N. W. 3.
New Hampshire. — Thurston v. Blaisdell, 8
N. H. 367.
New Jersey. — State Bank v. Holcomb, 7
N. J. L. 193, 11 Am. Dec. 549.
New York. — Eaton f. Wells, 22 Hun 123
[affirmed in 82 N. Y. 576] ; Globe Soap Co.
v. Liss, 36 Misc. 199, 73 N. Y. Suppl. 153;
Bernstein v. Levy, 34 Misc. 772, 68 N. Y.
Suppl. 833; People v. Banker, 8 How. Pr.
258; Rockefeller v. Weiderwax, 3 How. Pr.
382; Edwards v. Farmer's F., etc., Ins. Co,
21 Wend. 467; Eetan r. Drew, 19 Wend.
304; Farr v. Smith, 9 Wend. 33S, 24 Am.
Dec. 162; Hunter v. Le Conte, 6 Cow. 728.
Ohio. — Burt v. Dodge, 13 Ohio 131.
Pennsylvania. — McDowell v. Glass, 4 Watts
389; George v. Sunday, 1 Woodw. 364.
South Carolina. — Broughton i-. Richardson,
2 Rich. 64; Hinchy v. Foster, 3 McCord 428.
Fermore*.— Cree v. Lord, 25 Vt. 498.
United States. — Lichtenfels f. The Enos
B. Phillips, 53 Fed. 153; Hus v. Kempf, 12
Fed. Cas. No. 6,943, 10 Ben. 231.
England. — Walsh v. Southworth, 6 Exch.
150, 20 L. J. M. C. 165, 2 L. M. & P. 91.
Canada.— Garforth v. Cairns, 9 Can. L J.
N. S. 212.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 26.
TENDER
[38 Cye.J 139
tendered, comprehending everything accrued at the time of the tender or which
must necessarily be expended by plaintiff in disposing of the matter of record,
and such other items as plaintiff would be entitled to enter in the judgment.^^
Although a debtor does not in his estimate of the amount due include any interest,
yet if, as a matter of fact, he tenders enough money to cover the actual debt and
interest, the tender is good; *^ and if a contract for the payment of money at a
certain time does not mention interest, a tender on the due day, of the principal
without interest, is good."
3. Tender of More Than Is Due and Demand For Change '"^ — a. . In General.
Where a debtor offers in payment, as the sum due, a larger sum than is actually
due, or such larger sum is offered in payment of a less sum and he does not expressly
01 impliedly request any change to be returned, the tender is not objectionable,
foi a tender of a greater sum includes the less sum; ^° but it is held that a
When an action is deemed to be com-
menced see Actions, 1 Cyc. 747.
A failure upon request to state the amount
of the costs, where they are fixed by statute,
will not excuse a failure to tender the full
amount. Willey v. Laraway, 64 Vt. 566, 25
Atl. 435. But a plaintiff upon request is bound
to furnish information as to the costs, where
the costs incurred are peculiarly within his
knowledge; hut where defendant with knowl-
edge of the commencement of the suit made
no inquiry, it was held that plaintiff was
under no obligation to inform him that he
had summoned witnesses Smith v. Wilbur,
35 Vt. 133
Waiver of claim for costs. — If, at the time
of making a tender of the amount of the debt,
the debtor does not know that a, suit has
been commenced and the creditor does not
inform him of that fact, nor make any claim
for costs, but refuses to accept the amount
tendered solely on the ground that it is in-
suiEcient to pay the debt, it is a waiver of
all claims for costs. Jones v. Ames, Smith
(Ind.) 133; Haskell v. Brewer, 11 Me. 258;
Hull V. Peters, 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 331. See
Vreeland v. Waddell, 93 Wis. 107, 67 N. W.
51, where no demand was made for the ex-
cuse of keeping certain property, and a tender
of the debt alone was held sufficient.
42. Shutes v. Woodard, 57 Mich. 213, 23
N. W. 775 ; Mjones f. Yellow Medicine County
Bank, 45 Minn. 335, 47 N. W. 1072; Seelig-
son f. Gifford, (Tex. Civ. App. 1907) lOO
S. W. 213; Sorrel v. Gifford, (Tex. Civ. App.
1907) 100 S. W. 212; Bolton v. Gifford, 45
Tex. Civ. App. 140, 100 S. W. 210; Strusguth
V. Pollard, 62 Vt. 157, 19 Atl. 228 (holding
that the sum tendered must include not only
the costs accrued but the costs of a nonsuit) ;
Hoyt, etc., Co. v. Smith, 4 Wash. 640, 30
Pac. 664.
A slight deficiency will defeat the purpose
of the tender, which must cover all the costs,
the doctrine de mdnimis non curat lex not
applying. Wright v. Behrens, 39 N. J. L.
413.
Attorney's fee.— Where the instrument sued
on provides for payment of attorney's fees,
the tender must include such fees. Seeligson
V. Gifford, (Tex. Qiv. App. 1907) 100 S. W.
213; Sorrel v. Gifford, (Tex. Civ. App. 1907)
100 S. W. 212; Bolton v. Gifford, 45 Tex.
Civ. App. 140, 100 S. W. 210. See also supra,
III, A, 1, note 31. Thus where a mortgage pro-
vides for a reasonable attorney's fee, a tender
after a bill is filed should include an offer
to pay a reasonable fee for service already
performed. Fuller v. Brown, 167 111. 293, 47
N. E. 202; Smith v. Jackson, 153 111. 399,
39 N. E. 130 ; Oakford v. Brown, 68 111. App.
239. But where there is an attempt to fore-
close by advertisement, and the notice is
withdrawn because it is imperfect, the mort-
gagee is not entitled to demand the attorney's
fee. Collar v. Harrison, 30 Mich. 66. If
foreclosure proceedings are not binding upon
the mortgagor or a subsequent encumbrancer,
such person not bound need not tender the
attorney's fee or the cost of the foreclosure.
Catterlin v. Armstrong, 101 Ind. 258; Gage
V. Brewster, 31 N. Y. 218; Vroom v. Ditmas,
4 Paige (N. Y.) 526; Benedict v. Gilman, 4
Paige (N. Y.) 58.
Where the statute allows an attachment
before the maturity of the debt and a writ
is issued and sustained, a tender when the
debt falls due must include the costs of the
attachment. Audenreid v. Hull, 45 Mo. App.
202.
Where a plaintiff, in good faith, has sub-
poenaed his witnesses in the usual mode, and
has placed himself under a legal liability
to pay them if they attend, he is entitled to
a tender of their fees, and it makes no dif-
ference whether he has actually paid or
tendered -the witnesses their fees or not.
Smith f. Wilbur, 35 Vt. 133.
43. Rudulph V. Wagner, 36 Ala. 698.
44. Council V. Mulligan, 13 Sm. & M.
(Miss.) 388; Hines v. Strong, 46 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 97 [affirmed in 56 N. Y. 670].
45. Tender of fare to carrier and demand
for change see Cabbiers, 6 Cyc. 547.
46. Illinois. — North Chicago St. R. Co. v.
Le Grand Co., 95 111. App. 435.
Indiana. — Patterson v. Cox, 25 Ind. 261.
Michigan. — Hanscom v. Hinman, 30 Mich.
419.
New York. — Zeitlin v. Arkaway, 26 Misc.
761, 56 N. Y. Suppl. 1058.
North Carolina. — ^Wilson v. Duplin Tel. Co.,
139 N. C. 395, 52 S. E. 62.
Temas. — Odom v. Carter, 36 Tex. 2'81;
Houston, etc., E. Co. v. Campbell, (Civ. App.
189T) 40 S. W. 431.
[Ill, A, S, a]
140 [38 Cye.j
TENDER
tender of a larger amount than is due coupled with an express or implied request
for change is bad.*'
b. Waiver of Objection. The objection to a demand that change be fur-
nished is waived if the tender is refused upon some other ground, as where a
larger sum is demanded,*' or where the tender is refused unless a certain amount
be agreed upon as the sum due on a separate account/' or upon the ground that
money offered was depreciated; ^^ and it seems that a mere refusal to accept the
amount tendered without specific objection that change is demanded waives the
objection and validates the tender."^'
4. Tender of Balance Over Offset. A legal tender cannot be made of the
difference between the amount of an obligation for the payment of money and
an offset,^^ particularly where the counter demand is unlawful.^^
5. Tender on Several Demands. A person indebted upon two or more demands
hfeld by the same creditor may make a tender of one entire sum upon all the
demands.^'' But if the tender is refused on the ground that the amount offered
England. — Dean v. James, 4 B. & Ad. 547, 1
N. & M. 303, 2 L. J. K. B. 94, 24 E. C. L.
241, 110 Eng. Eeprint 561; Wade's Case, 5
Coke 114a, 77 Eng. Reprint 232; Sevan
V. Rees, 7 Dowl. P. C. 510, 3 Jur. 608, 8 L. J.
Exch. 263, 5 M. & W. 306; Douglas v. Patrick,
3 T. E. 683, 1 Rev. Rep. 793,. 100 Eng. Re-
print 802.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tender," § 24.
The money tendered must be susceptible of
the proper division, otherwise a tender might
be made in such a way that it would be
physically impossible for the creditor to take
what is due and return the difference. Bet-
terbee v. Davis, 3 Campb. 70, 13 Rev. Rep.
755. See Robinson v. Cook, 6 Taunt. 336, 16
Rev. Rep. 624, 1 E. C. L. 642. See also Hub-
bard V. Chenango Bank, 8 Cow. {N. Y.) 88.
47. Patterson v. Cox, 25 Ind. 261 ; Perkins
V. Beck, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,984, 4 Cranch
C. C. 68; Dean f. James, 4 B. & Ad. 547, 2
L. J. K. B. 94, 1 N. & M. 303, 24 E. C. L.
241, 110 Eng. Reprint 561; Betterbee v.
Davis, 3 Campb. 70, 13 Rev. Rep. 755; Blow
f. Russell, 1 C. & P. 365, 12 E. C. L. 217;
iBevan i: Rees, 7 Dowl. P. C. 510, 3 Jur. 608,
8 L. J. Exch. 263, 5 M. & W. 306; Brady v.
Jones, 2 D. & R. 305, 16 E. C. L. 87; Robin-
son V. Cook, 6 Taunt. 336, 16 Rev. Rep. 624,
1 E. C. L. 642.
Offering property of a greater value than
the amount of the chattel note, with a de-
mand for the difference in money, is not a
good tender. Lamb v. Lathrop, 13 Wend.
(N. Y.) 95, 27 Am. Dec. 174.
48. People's Furniture, etc., Co. v. Crosby,
67 Nebr. 282, 77 N. W. 658, 73 Am. St. Rep.
504; Richardson v. Jackson, 9 Dowl. P. 0-
715, 10 L. J. Exch. 303, 8 M. & W. 298;
Bevans v. Rees, 7 Dowl. P. C. 510, 3 Jur.
608, 8 L. J. Exch. 263, 5 M. & W. 306; Cad-
man V. Lubbock, 5 D. & R. 289, 3 L. J. K. B.
0. S. 41, 16 E. C. L. 235; Saunders v. Gra-
ham, Gow. 121, 5 E. C. L. 891; Black v.
Smith, Peake N. P. 88, 3 Rev. Rep. 661.
49. Bevan v. Rees, 7 Dowl. P. C. 510, 3
Jur. 608, 8 L. J. Exch. 263, 5 M. & W. 306.
50. Lohman v. Crouch, 19 Gratt. (Va.)
331.
51. Gradle v. Warner, 140 111. 123, 29
N. E. 1118.
[Ill, A, 3, a]
52. Rand v. Harris, 83 N. C. 486 ; Pershing
V. Feinberg, 203 Pa. St. 144, 52 Atl. 22;
Greenhill v. Hunton, (Tex. Civ. App. 1902)
69 S. W. 440 ; Searles v. Sadgrave, 5 E. & B.
639, 2 Jur. N. S. 21, 25 L. J. Q. B. 15, 4
Wkly. Rep. 53, 85 E. C. L. 639. But see
Smith V. Curtiss, 38 Mich. 393; Dedekam v.
Vose, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,729, 3 Blatchf. 44,
where it was held that in admiralty a ten-
der of freight charges less a certain sum for
damages done to the goods was a sufficient
tender.
An offer to pay an amount due for towage,
less damages done certain barges other than
the one for which the towage was claimed,
is insufficient. L'Hommedieu v. The H. L.
Dayton, 38 Fed. 926.
Effect of tender of difference. — A tender
of the difference between the amount due
and it counter-claim is an admission that the
amount tendered is due upon the contract
sued upon; but the tender does not preclude
proof of the counter-claim. Young v. Bor-
zone, 26 Wash. 4, 66 Pac. 135, 421.
53. Sager v. Tupper, 35 Mich. 134.
54. Johnson v. Cranage, 45 Mich. 14, 7
N. W. 188; Thetford v. Hubbard, 22 Vt. 440.
Where a creditor has separate demands
against several persons an offer of one sum
for the debts of all will not support a plea
that a certain portion of the sum was ten-
dered for the debt of one. Strong v. Harvey,
3 Bing. 307, 4 L. J. C. P. 0. S. 57, 11 Moore
C. P. 72, 11 E. C. L. 153 [explained in Hall
V. Norwalk F. Ins. Co., 57 Conn. 105, 17 Atl.
356].
Interest coupons in the hands of the kolder
of the bond and not negotiated are not dis-
tinct debts, and a tender to the holder of the
bond of the entire amount of the principal
and interest is not a tender on two demands.
Bailey v. Buchanan County, 115 N. Y. 297,
22 N. E. 155, 6 L. R. A. 562.
Where a person was indebted on different
demands to several persons separately, and
when they were together he tendered them
one sum sufficient to satisfy all their de-
mands, which they refused to receive on the
ground that more was dufe, it was held to be
a good tender. Black v. Smith, Peake N. P.
88, 3 Rev. Rep. 661.
TENDER
[38 eye.] 141
is not sufficient to pay all the claims, and the amount offered is insufficient in
fact, the tender will not be good as to any of the separate demands.''^ Conversely,
a debtor may pay his debts separately, and may therefore designate upon what
debt the money tendered is to apply; ^° and if there is a statute permitting a
tender to be made after an action is commenced, and several distinct claims have
been included in the complaint, a tender of the amount of one of the claims with
costs of the action is a tender 'pro tanto under the statute.^'
6. Waiver of Objection to Amount. An objection to the amount of a tender
must be taken at the time the tender is made, otherwise it is waived; ^' and where
the sum tendered is less than the sum due and the tender is refused by the creditor
on some ground other than that the amount is too small, as where it is claimed
that the contract is forfeited,^" the tenderee waives the objection to the insuffi-
ciency of the amount; "'' but it has been held that if a tender of a certain sum is
refused without assigning any reason and the sum offered is too small there is
no waiver of the objection to the amount/' A waiver of the objection that the
amount tendered is too small does not preclude the tenderee from recovering the
whole amount due, nor will the acceptance of a less sum than is due preclude the
recovery of the balance. °^
B. Manner — 1. In General. The tenderer must do and offer everything
that is necessary on' his part to complete the transaction, and must fairly make
known his purpose without ambiguity.''' The tender must be made in good
faith,^* and must be definite and certain in character,"^ so as to leave no reasonable
doubt that the tenderer intended at the time to make full and unconditional
payment; °° and the tenderee must be given an opportunity for intelligent action,"'
and to make an examination or inquiries pertaining to his rights in connection
55. People's Sav. Bank v. Norwalk, 56
fconn. ^547, 16 Atl. 257; Shuck v. Chicago,
etc., R. Co., 73 Iowa 333, 35 N. W. 429;
Hardingham v. Allen, 5 C. B. 793, 12 Jur.
584, 17 -L. J. C. P. 198, 57 E. C. L.
793.
56. Nelson v. Robson, 17 Minn. 284; Sa-
linas V. Ellis, 26 S. C. 337, 2 S. E. 121.
57. Carleton v. Whitcher, 5 N. H. 289.
58. Lamplev v. Weed, 27 Ala. 621; Ken-
tucky Chair Co. v. Com., 49 S. W. 197, 20
Kv. L. Rep. 1279; Browning v. Crouse, 40
Mich. 339.
59. Thayer v. Meeker, 86 111. 470; Fland-
ers V. Chamberlain, 24 Mich. 305; Bradshaw
V. Davis, 12 Tex. 336.
60. Arkansas. — Bender v. Bean, 52 Ark.
132, 12 S. W. 180, 241.
California. — Oakland Sav. Bank v. Apple-
garth, 67 Cal. 86, 7 Pac. 139, 476.
Colorado. — Northern Colorado Irr. Co. v.
Richards, 22 Colo. 450, 45 Pac. 423.
Iowa. — Sheriff v. Hull, 37 Iowa 174;
Guengerich v. Smith, 36 Iowa 587.
Michigan. — Hill v. Carter, 101 Mich. 158,
59 N. W. 413.
Mississippi. — Connell «. Mulligan, 13 Sm.
& M. 388.
New Hampshire. — Ricker v. Blanchard, 45
N. H. 39.
Pennsylvania. — Brewer v. Fleming, 51 Pa.
St. 102.
South Carolina. — Smith v. Stinson, 1
Brev. 1.
Tennessee. — Graves v. McFarlane, 2 Coldw.
167.
Wisconsin. — Gauche v. Milbrath, 94 Wis.
674, 69 N. W. 999.
This rule is made statutory in some states.
See the statutes of the several states. And
see Latimer v. Capay Valley Land Co., 137
Cal. 286, 70 Pac. 82.
61. McWhirter v. Crawford, 104 Iowa 550,
72 N. W. 505, 73 N. W. 1021; Chicago, etc.,
R. Co. V. Northwestern Union Packet Co., 38
Iowa 377. But see Hayward v. Munger, 14
Iowa 516.
63. Patnote v. Sanders, 41 Vt. 66, 98 Am.
Dec. 564; Carpenter v. Welch, 40 Vt. 251.
63. Proctor v. Robinson, 35 Mich. 284;
Lilienthal v. McCormick, 117 Fed. 89, 54
C. C. A. 475.
A court of equity will not supply a defect
in a tender against a rule of law. Taylor i:
Reed, 5 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 36 (holding that
if a party pretends to avail himself of the
plea of tender in equity, because he could
not make it at law, he ought to be held to
as great strictness as he would be held at
law) ; Arrowsmith v. Van Harlingen, 1 N. J. L.
26 ; Shields v. Lozear, 22 N. J. Eq. 447. See
Shotwell V. Dennman, 1 N. J. L. 174; Gam-
mon f. Stone, 1 Ves. 339, 30 Eng. Reprint
1068.
64. Doak v. Bruson, 152 Cal. 17, 91 Pac.
1001; Selby v. Hurd, 51 Mich. 1, 16 N. W.
180; McPherson v. Wiswell, 16 Nebr. 625,
21 N. W. 391; Fisk v. Holden, 17 Tex. 408.
65. Grace v. Means, 129 Ga. 638, 59 S. E.
811.
66. Pulsifer v. Shepard, 36 111. 513; East-
land V. Longshorn, 1 Nott & M. (S. C.) 194.
67. Wiltshire v. Smith, 3 Atk. 89, 26 Eng.
Reprint 854, 9 Mod. 441, 88 Eng. Reprint
561. See Harris v. Mulook, 9 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 402.
[HI, B, 1]
142 [SS'Cyc]
TENDER
with the transaction in which the tender is being made; °^ and the tenderer must
ordinarily declare upon what account the tender is rnade."^
2. Actual Offer. In making a tender there must be an actual offer by the
tenderer to pay.'" An announcement without more of an intention of making
a tender is not sufficient," nor is an assertion of readiness " or willingness to pay
sufficient.'^
3. Ability to Perform. In making a tender, the tenderer must have it in
his power, at the time of his offer, to pay the amount due; '* and must have title
to the thing tendered; '^ and the actual ability to deliver the money must not
only exist, but it must be made to appear at the time of the tender." Mere
A tender made in the street has been held
not good when the creditor, by reason of the
place, was without means of ascertaining the
amount due. Waldron v. Murphy, 40 Mich.
668; Chase v. Welsh, 45 Mich. 345, 7 N. W.
895. But where a debtor pulled out his
pocket-book and offered to pay if the cred-
itor would go into a public house near by,
the tender was held good. Read v. Goldring,
2 M. & S. 86, 105 Eng. Reprint 314.
68. Root f. Bradley, 49 Mich. 27, 12 N. W.
896; Chase v. Welsh, 45 Mich. 345, 7 N. W.
895; Waldron v. Murphy, 40 Mich. 668;
Proctor V. Robinson, 35 Mich. 284; Bake-
man v. Pooler, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 637.
69. Warner v. Harding, Latch. 69, 82 Eng.
Reprint 279.
70. Georgia. — Angier v. Equitable Bldg.,
etc., Assoc, 109 Ga. 625, 35 S. E. 64.
Illinois. — Liebbrandt r. Myron Lodge No.
One 0. F. 0. C, 61 111. 81.
Iowa. — Eastman v. Rapids Dist. Tp., 21
Iowa 590.
Minnesota. — Deering Harvester Co. v.
Hamilton, 80 Minn. 162, 83 N. W. 44.
Oregon. — Smith v. Foster, 5 Oreg. 44.
Pennsylvania. — Sheredine v. Gaul, 2 Dall.
190, 1 L. ed. 344.
Texas. — Rogers v. People's Bldg., etc.,
Assoc, (Civ. App. 1900) 55 S. W. 383.
yermojit.— Bowen v. Holly, 38 Vt. 574;
Barney v. Bliss, 1 D. Chipm. 399, 12 Am.
Dec 696.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 29.
Facts insufficient to constitute offer see
Winne v. Colorado Springs Co., 3 Colo. 155 ;
Sharpe v. Kennedy, 51 Ga. 257; Steele v.
Biggs, 22 111. 643; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Over-
man, 21 Ind. App. 516, 52 N. E. 771; Shoe-
maker V. Porter, 41 Iowa 197; Jones v. Mul-
linix, 25 Iowa 198; Eastman v. Rapids Dist.
Tp., 21 Iowa 590; Mclnerney v. Lindsay, 97
Mich. 238, 56 N. W. 603; Chase v. Welsh, 45
Mich. 345, 7 N. W. 895; Harmon v. Magee,
57 Miss. 410; Butts v. Burnett, 6 Abb. Pr.
N. S. (N. Y.) 302; Hornby v. Cramer, 12
how. Pr. (N. Y.) 490; Ladd v. Patten, 14
Fed. Cas. No. 7,973, 1 Cranch C. C. 263;
Ryder v. Townsend, 7 D. & R. 119, 4 L. J.
IC. B. O. S. 27, 16 E. C. L. 272. See J. H.
North Furniture, etc, Co. f-. Davis, 86 Mo.
App. 296, where a deposit of money with a
justice was held not a tender at common
law; nor one under the statute, since not
made to the constable, as required therein.
71. Stone t\ Billings, 167 111. 170, 47 N. E.
372 [affirming 63 111. App. 371].
[Ill, B, 1]
Publishing a notice in a paper that bonds
will be paid at a certain time and place other
than that named in the bond is not a tender.
Kelley v. Phenix Nat. Bank, 17 N. Y. App.
Div. 496, 45 N. Y. Suppl. 533.
72. Alabama. — Cowan v. Harper, 2 Stew.
& P. 236.
Indiana. — Pratt v. Graflf, 15 Ind. 1; Mc-
Kernon v. McCormick, 2 Ind. 318.
Kentucky. — Mitchell v. Gregory, 1 Bibb
449, 4 Am. Dec 655.
Louisiana. — Bacon v. Smith, 2 La. Ann.
441, 46 Am. Dec 549.
North Carolina. — North v. Mallett, 3
N. C. 151.
Tennessee. — -Nixon v. Bullock, 9 Yerg. 414.
Texas, — Dumas v. Hardwick, 19 Tex. 238.
Vermont. — Barney v. Bliss, 1 D. Chipm.
399, 12 Am. Dec 696.
Wisconsin. — Hunter t". Warner, 1 Wis.
141. '
England. — Scott r. Franklin, 15 East 428,
] 04 Eng. Reprint 906 ; Sucklinge v. Coney,
Noy 74, 74 Eng. Reprint 1041.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 29 et
seq.
73. Adams v. Friedlander, 37 La. Ann.
350; Mclntyre i\ Carver, 2 Watts & S. (Pa.)
392, 37 Am. Dec 519.
In Louisiana a tender must be made in the
manner provided in Code Pr. art. 407. Me-
chanics', etc.. Bank !,-. Barnett, 27 La. Ann.
177 ; Thompson i\ Edwards, 23 La. Ann. 183.
See infra. III, B, 5.
74. Selby v. Hurd, 51 Mich. 1, 16 N. W.
180.
75. Reed v. Newburgh Bank, 6 Paige
(N, Y.) 337.
But if the offer is accepted, the question
of a tenderer's title is material only so far
as it affects his ability to make a valid trans-
fer. Eslow V. Mitchell, 26 Mich. 500; Cham-
pion V. Joslyn, 44 N. Y. 653.
A tender of notes which were borrowed for
the purpose of tendering them back to the
original transferrer was held good. Bell V.
Ballance, 12 N. C. 391.
76. Berger v. Peterson, 78 111. 633; De
Wolfe V. Taylor, 71 Iowa 648, 33 N. W. 154;
Selby V. Hurd, 51 Mich. 1, 16 N. W. 180;
Fuller r. Little, 7 N. H. 535. See Pinney f.
Jorgenson, 27 Minn. 26, 6 N. W. 376, where
it was held that it was error to exclude evi-
dence that the tenderer then had the money
with him.
Merely stating, " I will pay you the money
I offered you yesterday," where the money
TENDER
[38 Cye.] 143
ability to pay on the day fixed for payment is not sufficient," nor is an ability
to borrow; " but the money must be in the creditor's immediate control ready for
delivery,'' that is to say in his immediate possession or within convenient reach.*"
4. Actual Production of Thing Tendered — a. In General. In order to make
a valid tender of either money or chattels, the thing to be tendered must be actu-
ally produced and offered to the party entitled thereto, a mere offer to pay being
insufficient; *' and the tenderer must place the money or property in such a posi-
was in a desk near by, was held not suflS-
cient. It ought to appear that the money
was there, capable of immediate delivery.
Glasscott v.. Day, 5 Esp. 48, 8 Rev. Eep. 828.
Where concurrent acts are to be per-
formed, a refusal to perform by one party
will ordinarily discharge the other, but be-
fore he will be entitled to claim the benefit
of actual performance he must show upon
his part that at the time for performance he
was actually able to perform, for otherwise
the performance by him would not be pre-
vented by the declaration of the other party.
Eddv V. Davis, 40 Hun (N. Y.) 637 laffi/rmed
in 116 N. Y. 247, 22 N. E. 362]; Mills v.
ituggins, 14 N. C. 58.
77. Myers v. Byington, 34 Iowa 205.
78. Sargent v. Graham, 5 N. H. 440, 22
Am. Dec. 469 ; Eastland v. Longshorn, 1 Nott
& M. (S. C.) 194.
But where a third person was present
with the money and joined in the offer the
tender was held sufficient (Mathis v. Thomas,
101 Ind. 119) ; and an offer by a third per-
son to go upstairs and fetch a certain sum
which the debtor had offered to pay his
creditor, where the offer was refused, has
been held to constitute a tender (Harding V.
Davis, 2 C. & P. 77, 31 Kev. Rep. 654, 12
E. C. L. 460).
79. Steel v. Biggs, 22 111. 643; Wyllie v.
Matthews, 60 Iowa 187, 14 N. W. 232;
Niederhauser v. Detroit Citizens' St. R. Co.,
131 Mich. S50, 91 N. W. 1028; Thompson v.
Hamilton, 5 U. C. Q. B. 0. S. Ill; Clerk
V. Wadleigh, 10 Quebec Super. Ct. 456.
80. Wynkoop v. Cowing, 21 111. 570.
Possession insufficient to validate tender.
— A statement by a debtor that he can get
the money in five minutes (Breed v. Hurd,
6 Pick. (Mass.) 356), or that he can get
it the next morning (Blair v. Hamilton, 48
Ind. 32), does not constitute tender; nor does
an offer to pay a certain sum if the creditor
would go to a certain bank (Stakke v. Chap-
man, 13 S. D. 269, 83 N. W. 261), and where
it appeared by evidence that at the time of
making the offer the debtor did not have the
money but could have got it in another city,
the tender was held bad. Dungan v. Mutual
Ben. L. Ins. Co., 46 Md. 469. But on the
other hand a refusal to receive the amount of
a debt, on a statement by the debtor that he
had the money in the bank in the same build-
ing, has been held to dispense with the ac-
tual production of the money (Smith v. Old
Dominion Bldg., etc., Assoc, 119 N. C. 257,
26 S. E. 40), and where the tenderer has
money in another bank in the same town
and could have produced it, the tender was
also held good (Steckel v. Standley, 107
Iowa 694, 77 N. W. 489) ; and it has even
been held that where a mortgagee, after com-
mencing foreclosure proceedings, demanded
payment of the mortgage debt, a promise to
pay as soon as the money could be obtained
from the bank a few miles distant was a
valid tender (Sharp v. Todd, 38 N. J. Eq.
324).
If the debtor intends to pay with a check,
it must be drawn at the time; an offer to
draw a, check is not a tender. Dunham v.
Jackson, 6 Wendi (N. Y.) 22. But see Link
V. Mack, 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 615, 56 N. Y.
Suppl. 115.
Offer in writing. — The same ability to pro-
duce the money is required where the tender
under the statute may be made in writing.
Hyams v. Bamberger, 10 Utah 3, 36 Pac. 202.
See infra, III, B, 5.
81. Alabama. — Camp v. Simon, 34 Ala.
126.
Arkansas. — Burr v. Dougherty, 21 Ark.
559.
California. — People v. Harris, 9 Cal. 571.
Illinois. — Liebbrandt v. Myron Lodge No.
One 0. F. 0. C, 61 111. 81.
Indiana. — Schrader v. Wolfin, 21 Ind. 238.
Iowa. — Holt V. Brown, 63 Iowa 319, 19
N. W. 235; Shoemaker v. Porter, 41 Iowa
197.
Louisiana. — Bacon v. Smith, 2 La. Ann.
441, 46 Am. Dec. 549.
Maine. — Brown v. Gilmore, 8 Me. 107, 22
Am. Dec. 223.
Michigan. — Chase v. Welsh, 45 Mich. 345,
7 N. W. 895.
Minnesota. — Deering Harvester Co. v.
Hamilton, 80 Minn. 162, 83 N. W. 44.
New York.— Lewis v. Mott, 36 N. Y. 395 ;
Leask f. Dew, 102 N. Y. App. Div. 529, 92
N. Y. Suppl. 891; Strong V. Blake, 46 Barb.
227; Bolton v. Ainsler, 95 N. Y. Suppl. 481,
482; Cashman v. Martin, 50 How. Pr. 337;
Bakeman v. Pooler, 15 Wend. 637.
Rhode Island. — Potter v. Thompson, 10
R. I. 1.
Virginia. — Moore V. Harnsberger, 26
Gratt. 667.
West Virginia. — Shank v. Groff, 45 W. Va.
543, 32 S. E. 248.
Wisconsin. — Babcock v. Perry, 8 Wis. 277;
Hunter v. Warner, 1 Wis. 141.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 29.
The object of requiring the actual produc-
tion of the money is said to be that the
sight of it will tend to induce the party to
whom it is offered to accept it, thereby pre-
venting litigation. Holladay v. Holladay, 13
Oreg. 523, 11 Pac. 260, 12 Pac. 821; Finch v.
Brook, 1 Bing. N. Cas. 253, 2 Hodges 97, 4
L. J. C. P. 1, 1 Scott 511, 27 E.. C. L. 628;
[III, B, 4^ a]
lU [38 Cye.J
TENDER
tion that his control over it is relinquished for a sufficient time to enable the
tenderee, if he so desires, to reduce it to possession by merely reaching out and
laying hold of the money or thing; *^ and a person is not bound to say whether or
not he will accept the money or thing until it is produced.*^
b. Counting Out Money. If a tender is made of the proper amount it is not
necessary for. the tenderer to count it out,** particularly where the counting out
is waived by the tenderee refusing to receive the money, '^ it being the duty of the
party who is to receive it to take it out and count it.*"
e. Waiver. The actual production of the money is , dispensed with if the
party is ready and willing to pay the same, but is prevented by the party to whom
it is due expressly saying that it need not be produced, as he would not accept it,*'
or if he declares that he will not receive it,'* or refuses to remain untU it is pro-
Kraus x. Arnold, 7 Moore C. P. 59, 17
E. C. L. 508.
An offer to do full equity is not sufficient.
Ailey v. Burnett, 134 Mo. 313, 33 S. W. 1122,
35 S. W. 1137.
Where the amount due was exclusively
within the knowledge of the creditor, an
application to know the amount due and an
offer to pay on being informed was held a
sufficient tender. Shannon v. Howard Mut.
Bldg. Assoc, 36 Md. 383.
An offer by letter to pay the money due
is no tender, although the creditor's attorney
treated it as a tender, and wrote, in answer,
" I decline your tender, and shall file the
bill" (Powney v. Blomberg, 8 Jur. 746, 13
L. J. Ch. 450, 14 Sim. 179, 37 Eng. Ch. 179,
60 Eng. Reprint 325), and a valid tender is
not made by going with the proper amount
to the office of the creditor's attorney, and
on finding no one there, writing a letter stat-
ing that he can have the money by calling
for it (Middleton r. Scott, 3 Ont. L. Eep.
26).
82. Sands v. Lyons, 18 Conn. 18.
83. Bakeman v. Pooler, 15 Wend. (N. Y.)
637.
84. Breed v. Hurd, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 356;
Behaly f. Hatch, Walk. (Miss.) 369, 12 Am.
Dec. 570; Wheeler r. Knaggs, 8 Ohio 169.
It will not do to have it in a pocket or
place about the person, concealed from the
party. Strong v. Blake, 46 Barb. (N. Y.)
227; Bakeman v. Pooler, 15 Wend (N. Y.)
637; Farnsworth v. Howard, 1 Coldw.
(Tenn.) 215.
The money should be placed within con-
venient reach of the creditor. Hartsoek v.
Mort, 76 Md. 281, 25 Atl. 303; Curtiss v.
Greenbanks, 24 Vt. 536.
If held in the hand and actually offered to
the creditor the tender is good (Kaines l?.
Jones, 4 Humphr. (Tenn.) 490), and where
the money offered was held in the hand but
not exposed, the tender was held good (Rey-
nolds V. Allan, 10 U. C. Q. B. 350).
Where the money offered was contained
in a handkerchief held in the debtor's hand,
the amount and kind of money being stated
to the creditor, the tender was good. Davis
v. Stonestreet, 4 Ind. 101.
85. King V. King, 90 Va. 177, 17 S. E.
894. See Appleton v. Donaldson, 3 Pa. St.
381.
86. Behaly v. Hatch, Walk. (Miss.) 369,
[ni, B, 4, a]
12 Am. Dec. 570; Thorne K. Mosher, 20 N. J.
Eq. 257; Wade's Case, 5 Coke 114a, 77 Eng.
Reprint 232; Read c. Goldring, 2 M. & S. 86,
105 Eng. Reprint 314.
Lord Coke said: "The feoffee may ten-
der the money in purses or bags, without
shewing or telling the same, for he doth that
which he ought, viz. to bring the money in
purses or bags, which is the usual manner
to carry money in, and then it is the part of
the party that is to receive it to put it out
and tell it." Coke Litt. 208o.
87. Brown v. Gilmore, 8 Me. 107, 22 Am.
Dec. 223 ; Westmoreland, etc., Natural Gas
Co. V. De Witt, 130 Pa. St. 235, 18 Atl. 724,
5 L. R. A. 731 ; King v. King, 90 Va. 177, 17
S. E. 894; Wallis r. Glynn, Coop. 282, 10
Eng. Ch. 282, 35 Eng. Reprint 559, 19 Ves.
Jr. 380, 34 Eng. Reprint 559; Dickinson t.
Shee, 4 Esp. N. P. 67; Kraus x>. Arnold, 7
Moore C. P. 59, 17 E. C. L. 508.
88. Alabama. — Odum r. Rutledge, etc.,
R. Co., 94 Ala. 488, 10 So. 222; Rudulph t\
Wagner, 36 Ala. 698. See Birmingham
Paint, etc., Co. i;. Crampton, (1905) 39 So.
1020.
Connecticut. — Hall v. Norwalk F. Ins. Co.,
57 Conn. 105, 17 Atl. 356.
Delaware.— Wood v. Bangs, 2 Pennew.
435, 48 Atl. 189.
Zotco.— Austin v. Smith, (1906) 109 N. W.
289; Steckel v. Standley, 107 Iowa 694, 77
N. W. 489.
Kentucky. — Dorsey v. Barbee, Litt. Sel.
Cas. 204, 12 Am. Dec. 296.
Louisiana. — McStea v. Warren, 26 La.
Ann. 453.
Massachusetts. — Hazard v. Loring, 10
Cush. 267.
Minnesota. — ^Pinney v. Jorgenson, 27 Minn.
26, 6 N. W. 376; Scott v. St. Paul, etc., R.
Co., 21 Minn. 322.
Mississippi. — Wesling v. Noonan, 31 Miss.
599.
Missouri. — Stephenson v. Kilpatrick, 166
Mo. 262, 65 S. W. 773 ; Westlake v. St. Louis,
77 Mo. 47, 46 Am. Rep. 4; Johnson v. Gar-
lichs, 63 Mo. App. 578; Walsh v. St. Louis
Exposition, etc., Assoc, 101 Mo. 534, 14
S. W. 722.
New Jersey. — Thorne v. Mosher, 20 N. J.
Eq. 257.
New York. — Stone t: Sprague, 20 Barb.
509 ; Bellinger v. Kilts, 6 Barb. 273 ; Slinger-
land V. Morse, 8 Johns. 474.
TENDER
[38 Cye.J 145
duced,*' or repulses the debtor/" or makes some unjustifiable demand as a con-
dition of accepting the tender." So an actual production is waived where, the
debtor being about to produce, the tenderee refused to receive, not on the ground
that the tender is not produced, but upon some other and distinct ground,"^ or
refuses to deal with the debtor, referring him to an attorney of the tenderee; "^
or where the agent to whom the offer is made denies having authority to receive
the money, when he in fact has such authority. "■' Where a debtor goes to the
place designated for payment, at the time appointed, with the money or thing
to deliver it, and the person who is to receive it is not present, the money or thing
need not be produced."^ But the actual production of the money is held not to
be dispensed with by a bare refusal to receive the sum proposed and demanding
more; "" and it is held that in order to establish a waiver there must be an existing
capacity to perform."^
6. Tender in Writing; Statutory Provisions. At common law a mere written
proposal to pay a sum of money if unaccompanied with production of the money
or thing to be tendered is not a good tender."' But under statute, in some states.
TJlorth Carolina. — Terrell t\ Walker, 65
N. C. 91.
Pennsylvania. — Brewer v. Fleming, 5 1 Pa.
St. 102; Appleton v. Donaldson, 3 Pa. St.
381; Hanna V. Phillips, 1 Grant 253; Eck-
man v. Hildebrand, 1 Lane. L. Rev. 21.
Tennessee. — Memphis City Bank v. Smith,
110 Tenn. 337, 75 S. W. 1065; Farnsworth
V. Howard, 1 Coldw. 215.
Texas. — Price v. McCoy, 1 Tex. App. Civ.
Cas. § 181.
Vermont. — Cobb v. Hall, 33 Vt. 233 ; Dick-
inson V. Dutoher, Brayt. 104; Morton v.
Wells, 1 Tyler 381.
Virginia. — Lohman v. Crouch, 19 Gratt.
331.
United States. — Barker v. Parkenhom, 2
Fed. Cas. No. 993, 2 Wash. 142.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tender," § 53.
In California, Civ. Code, § 1496, provides
that the thing tendered need not be produced
unless accepted (Latimer v. Capay Valley
Land Co., 137 Cal. 286, 70 Pac. 82), and the
actual production is waived unless demanded
at the time (Green v. Barney, (1894) 36 Pac.
1026).
Question for jury. — Whether the actual
production of the money or thing was dis-
pensed with is a question of fact to be de-
termined by the jury. Guthman v. Kearn,
8 Nebr. 502, 1 N. W. 129; Finch v. Brook,
1 Bing. N. Cas. 253, 2 Hodges 97, 4 L. J.
C. P. 1, 1 Scott 70, 2 Scott 511, 27 E. C. L.
628 ; Read li. Goldring, 2 M. & S. 86, 105 Eng.
Reprint 314; 2 Greenleaf Ev. 602. See also
Milburn v. Milburn, 4 U. C. Q. B. 179, where
it was held that it was for the jury to de-
termine whether the tenderee had an op-
portunity to determine if a sufficient sum
was oflfered him.
89. Sands v. Lyons, 18 Conn. 18 ; Leather-
dale V. Sweepstone, 3 C. & P. 342, 14 E. C. L.
600.
90. Wing V. Davis, 7 Me. 31 (where the
debtor, with the money, was refused admis-
sion by the creditor to his house) ; Sharp i".
Todd, 38 N. J. Eq. 324; Mesrole v. Archer,
3 Bosw. (N. Y.) 376.
91. Parker v. Perkins, 8 Cush. (Mass.)
318.
[10]
92. Arkansas. — Bender v. Bean, 52 Ark.
132, 12 S. W. 180, 241; Nick v. Rector, 4
Ark. 251.
Illinois.— Ventres v. Cobb, 105 111. 33;
Hanna v. Ratekin, 43 111. 462.
Michigan. — Lacy v. Wilson, 24 Mich.
479.
Minnesota. — Wesling v. Noonan, 31 Miss.
599.
North Carolina. — Abrams v. Suttles, 44
N. C. 99.
Pennsylvania. — Wagenblast v. McKean, 2
Grant 393.
Teoeas. — Haney v. Clark, 65 Tex. 93.
Washington. — Weinberg v. Naher, 51 Wash.
591, 99 Pac. 736, 22 L. R. A. N. S. 956.
West Virginia. — Koon v. Snodgrass, 18
W. Va. 320.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 53.
Compare also Packard v. Mobile, 151 Ala.
159, 43 So. 963.
93. Ashburn v. Poulter, 35 Conn. 553;
Finch V. Brook, 1 Bing. N. Cas. 253, 2 Hodges
97, 4 L. J. C. P. 1, 1 Scott 70, 2 Scott 511,
27 E. C. L. 628; Eao p. Banks, 2 De G. M.
& G. 936, 22 L. J. Bankr. 73, 1 Wkly. Rep.
57, 51 Eng. Ch. 731, 42 Eng. Reprint 1138.
94. Smith v. Old Dominion Bldg., etc., As-
soc, 119 N. C. 257, 26 S. E. 40.
95. Morton v. Wells, 1 Tyler (Vt.) 381.
96. Maine. — Brown v. Gilmore, 8 Me. 107,
22 Am. Dec. 223.
New York. — Dunham v. Jackson, 6 Wend.
22.
Pennsylvania. — See Wagenblast v. Mc-
Kean, 2 Grant 393.
Tennessee. — Farnsworth v. Howard, 1
Coldw. 215.
England. — Thomas v. Evans, 10 East 101,
10 Rev. Rep. 229, 103 Eng. Reprint 714;
Dickinson v. Shee, 4 Esp. 67; Kraus v. Ar-
nold, 7 Moore C. P. 59, 17 E. C. L. 508. But
see Black v. Smith, Peake N. P. 88, 3 Rev.
Rep. 661.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 53.
But see Lamar v. Sheppard, 84 Ga. 561, 10
S. E. 1084.
97. Leask v. Dew, 102 N. Y. App. Div. 529,
92 N. Y. Suppl. 891.
98. Angier v. Equitable Bldg., etc., Assoc,
[in, B, 5]
146 [38 Cyc]
TENDER
an offer in writing to pay a definite sum of money, or to deliver a particular thing,
may take the place of an actual production and proffer of the money to be paid
or thing to be delivered.'" Such statutory written offer dispenses merely with the
actual production of the money or thing,' and in all other respects the common
law prevails.^
C. Medium. A tender of money in satisfaction of an obligation payable
in money, to be unobjectionable, must be made in whatever form of money is,
at the time, legal tender for the payment of debts.' But objection to a tender
of bank-bills or other money not legal tender, but which is lawful money,* current
and circulating at par,'* is deemed to be waived, if at the time the money is offered
objection be not taken that the money is not legal tender; ° and similarly, although
the general nile is that an offer of a bank check for the amount due is not a good
109 Ga. 625-, 35 S. E. 64; Brill r. Grand
Trunk R. Co., 20 U. C. C. P. 440.
99. See the statutes of the several states.
And see Holt v. Brown, 63 Iowa 319, 19
N. W. 235; Casady v. Bosler, 11 Iowa 242;
HoUaday v. HoUaday, 13 Oreg. 523, 11 Pac.
260, 12 Pac. 821; Ladd r. Mason, 10 Oreg.
308; Chielovich v. Krauss, (Cal. 1886) 11
Pac. 781.
1. Shugart v. Pattee, 37 Iowa 422; Mc-
Court v. Johns, 33 Oreg. 561, 53 Pac. 601;
HoUaday v. Holladay, 13 Oreg. 523, 11 Pac.
260, 12 Pac. 821; Ladd r. Mason, 10 Oreg.
308; Hyams v. Bamberger, 10 Utah 3, 36
Pac. 202.
2. Kuhns f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 65 Iowa
528, 22 N. W. 661 ; Holladay v. Holladay, 13
Oreg. 523, 11 Pac. 260, 12 Pac. 821.
3. Martiu t. Bott, 17 Ind. App. 444, 46
N. E. 151; Buchegger r. Sliultz, 13 Mich.
40, 14 Am. L. Reg. 95 ; Juilliard «. Greenman,
110 U. S. 421, 4 S. Ct. 122, 28 L. ed. 204;
Knox f. Lee, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 457, 20. L. ed.
287; Polglass i-. Oliver, 2 Cromp. & J. 15,
1 L. J. Exch. 5, 2 Tyrw. 89.
What constitutes legal tender see Pay-
ment, 30 Cyc. 1212.
Money order misnaming tenderee. — ^Where,
in answer to a letter demanding payment, the
debtor sent a money order in which the cred-
itor was described by the wrong name, the
tender was held bad, even thoujjh the cred-
itor was informed at the post-of&ce that he
could have the money by signing the order
in the name of the pavee. Gordon v. Strange,
1 Exch. 477, 11 Jur. 1019.
4. Wilson i\ McVey, 83 Ind. 108; Martin
X. Bott, 17 Ind. App. 444, 46 N. E. 151.
5. Ward v. Smith, 7 WalL (U. S.) 447, 19
L. ed. 207.
If a tender is made in depreciated bank-
notes, the refusal to accept may be presumed
to arise from the fact of such depreciation.
Cockrill c. Kirkpatrick, 9 Mo. 697.
6. Alabama. — Seawell r. Henry, 6 Ala.
226.
Arkansas. — Harriman r. Meyer, 45 Ark.
37.
Delaware. — Wood r. Bangs, 2 Pennew. 435,
48Atl. 189; Corbit v. Smyrna Bank, 2 Harr.
235, 30 Am. Dec. 635.
Florida. — Spann v. Baltzell, 1 Fla. 301, 48
Am. Dec. 346.
Illinois. — New Hope Delaware Bridge Co.
[UI, B, 5]
r. Perry, 11 111. 467, 52 Am. Dec. 443; Keyes
V. Jasper, 5 111. 305.
Kentucky. — Jones v. Overstreet, 4 T. B.
Mon. 547.
Massachusetts. — Snow f. Perry, 9 Pick.
539; Hallowell, etc.. Bank v. Howard, 13
Mass. 235.
Michigan. — Koehler v. Buhl, 94 Mich. 496,
54 N. W. 157; Beebe r. Knapp, 28 Mich. 53;
Lacy V. Wilson, 24 Mich. 479; Fosdick v.
Van Husan, 21 Mich. 567; Welch v. Frost,
1 Mich. 30, 48 Am. Dec. 692.
Missouri. — Cockrill v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Mo.
697; Williams v. Rorer, 7 Mo. 556.
New Hampshire. — Brown v. Simons, 44
N. H. 475; Cummings f. Putnam, 19 N. H.
569.
Ohio. — Jennings v. Mendenhall, 7 Ohio St.
257; Wheeler v. Knaggs, 8 Ohio 169.
Tennessee. — Greenwald v. Roberts, 4 Heisk.
494; McDowell v. Keller, 4 Coldw. 258; Noe
V. Hodges, 3 Humphr. 162; Cooley v. Weeks,
10 Yerg. 141 ; Lowry v. McGhee, 8 Yerg. 242 ;
Ball i,-. Stanley, 5 Yerg. 199, 26 Am. Dec.
263.
Vermont. — Curtiss t. Greenbanks, 24 Vt.
536.
United States. — U. S. Bank v. Georgia
Bank, 10 Wheat. 333, 6 L. ed. 334.
England.— Gillard r. Wise, 5 B. & C. 134,
7 D. & R. 523, 4 L. J. K. B. O. S. 88, 29 Rev.
Rep. 190, 11 E. C. L. 399, 108 Eng. Reprint
49 ; Grigsby r. Oakes, 2 B. & P. 526 ; Tiley v.
Courtier, 2 Cromp. & J. 16 note; Polglass v.
Oliver, 2 Cromp. & J. 15, 2 Tyrw. 89, 1 L. J.
Exch. 5; Brown v. Saul, 4 Esp. 267; Lockyer
V. Jones, Peake N. P. 180 note, 3 Rev. Rep.
682 note; Owenson v. Morse, 7 T. R. 64, 101
Eng. Reprint 856; Wright v. Reed, 3 T. E.
554, 100 Eng. Reprint 729.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 46 et
seq.
An objection to the medium of payment
cannot be disregarded, although the real mo-
tive for refusing the tender is to get rid of
the contract. Decamp v. Feay, 5 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 323, 9 Am. Dec. 372.
An order on a third person and the balance
in money is not a good tender whatever the
objection may be. Hall v. Appel, 67 Conn.
585, 35 Atl. 524.
Tender to agent. — Where an agent or clerk
authorized to receive payment fails to object
to current bank-bills on the ground that they
TENDER
[38 Cycj 147
tender,' if the tender of the check is refused, not on the ground that it is not legal
tender, but upon some other ground,^ as that it is not drawn for the sum the
creditor demands,' or that it is not made in time,'" the objection to the check is
waived and the tender is good as far as the medium of payment is concerned,
and this rule extends to drafts " and certificates of deposit." However, mere
silence on the part of the tenderee as to his reason for refusing the tender does not
constitute a waiver of the objection that the tender is made by check; '^ and so
also there is no waiver if the creditor is not present at the time to object."
D. Time and Place — l. Time — a. In General. At common law a tender
of money which a party is bound to pay at a certain time and place must be made
on the day fixed for payment, and not thereafter." This rule in some states has
been changed by statute,'" in others by the decisions of the courts; " and the
general rule now is that in case of money demands where the amount is liquidated,
or capable of being made so by mere computation, and the damages are merely
the interest, a tender may be made after default at any time before action.^' But
are not legal tender the objection is waived
and the tender is good. People t. Mayhew,
26 Cal. 655; Hoyt x,. Byrnes, 11 Me. 475;
Ward V. Smith, 7 Wall. {U. S.) 447, 19
L. ed. 207. But see Welch v. Frost, 1 Mich.
30, 48 Am. Deo. 692.
7. Colorado. — Larsen v. Breene, 12 Colo.
480, 21 Pac. 49'8.
District of Golurnbia. — Barbour v. Hickey,
2 App. Cas. 207, 24 L. R. A. 763.
Illinois.- — • Harding j;. Commercial Loan Co.,
84 111. 251 ; Sloan v. Petrie, 16 111. 262.
Mississippi. — Collier v. White, 67 Miss.
133, 6 So. 618.
Nehraska.— Te Poel v. Shutt, 57 Nebr. 592,
78 N. W. 288.
New Yorfc.— Matter of Collyer, 124 N. T.
App. Div. 16, 108 N. Y. Suppl. 600; Volk v.
Olsen, 54 Misc. 227, 104 N. Y. Suppl. 415;
Block V. Garfiel, 30 Misc. 821, 61 N. Y.
Suppl. 918; Kumpf t. Schiff, 109 N. Y. Suppl.
51; Martin f. Clover, 17 N. Y. Suppl. 638;
Grussy v. Schneider, 50 How. Pr. 134.
Virginia. — See Poague v. Greenlee, 22
Gratt. 724.
8. Walsh V. -St. Louis Exposition, etc., As-
soc, 101 Mo. 534, 14 S. W. 722.
A certified check is not ordinarily the
equivalent of money for the purposes of a
tender. Hobbs v. Ray, 96 S. W. 589, 29 Ky.
L. Rep. 999. But the tender of a certified
check in payment of a debt is sufiicient, where
no objection is made to the form in which
the tender is made. Germania L. Ins. Co. «.
Potter, 124 N. Y. App. Div. 814, 109 N. Y.
Suppl. 435 [reversing 57 Misc. 204, 107 N. Y.
Suppl. 912].
A tender of an uncertified check is sufficient
if it is not objected to on the ground that it
is uncertified. Bunte v. Schumann, 46 Misc.
(N. Y.) 593, 92 N. Y. Suppl. 806.
9. Iowa. — Shay v. Callanan, 124 Iowa 370,
100 N. W. 55.
Maryland. — Bonaparte v. Thayer, 95 Md.
548, 52 Atl. 496; McGrath v. Gegner, 77
Md. 331, 26 Atl. 502, 39 Am. St. Rep. 415.
J^eirasfea.— Ricketts v. BuckstafF, 64 Nebr.
851, 90 N. W. 915.
New Yorh. — Mitchell v. Vermont Copper
Min. Co., 67 N. Y. 280 [affirming 40 N. Y.
Super. Ct. 406].
Pennsylvania. — Pershing v. Feinberg, 203
Pa. St. 144, 52 Atl. 22.
England. — ^ Jones v. Arthur, 8 Dowl. P. C.
442, 4 Jur. 859.
If a tender is made in the form of a check
in a letter and no objection is made to the
medium but only to the quantum of the
tender, it is good if actually sufficient in
amount. Jones v. Arthur, 8 Dowl. P. C.
442, 4 Jur. 859. See Lampasas Hotel, etc.,
Co. V. Home Ins. Co., 17 Tex. Civ. App. 615,
43 S. W. lOiSl.
Demanding that the check be drawn in a
particular way has been held to be no waiver
of the objection that money is not tendered.
Murphy v. Gold, etc., Tel. Co., 3 N. Y. Suppl.
804.
10. Kollitz v. Equitable Mut. F. Ins. Co.,
92 Minn. 234, 99 N. W. 892 ; Duffy v. O'Dono-
van, 46 N. Y. 223.
11. Shay V. Callanan, 124 Iowa' 370, 100
N. W. 55 ; Hidden v. German Sav., etc., Soc,
48 Wash. 384, 93 Pac. 668.
12. Gradle v. Warner, 140 111. 123, 29 N. E.
1118.
13. Jennings v. Mendenhall, 7 Ohio St. 257.
14. Sloan v. Petrie, 16 111. 262.
15. Maynard v. Hunt, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 240;
Dewey v. Humphrey, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 187;
Suffolk Bank v. Worcester Bank, 5 Pick.
(Mass.) 106; City Bank v. Cutter, 3 Pick.
(Mass.) 414; Dixon v. Clark, 5 C. B. 365,
5 D. & L. 155, 16 L. J. C. P. 237, 57 E. C. L.
365; Cotton i\ Godwin, 9 Dowl. P. C. 763, 10
L. J. Exch. 243, 7 M. & W. 147; Whit-
lock V. Squire, 10 Mod. 81, 88 Eng. Re-
print 636; Poole v. Crompton, 5 Dowl.
P. C. 468; Hume v. Peploe, 8 East 168,
9 Rev. Rep. 399, 109 Eng. Reprint 306;
Dobie V. Larkin, 10 Exch. 776, 3 Wkly. Rep.
247; Poole v. Thumbridge, 6 L. J. Exch. 74,
2 M. & W. 223.
16. See the statutes of the several states.
And see Suffolk Bank v. Worcester Bank, 5
Pick. (Mass.) 106; City Bank l'. Cutter, 3
Pick. (Mass.) 414, citing Mass. Rev. St.
c. 100, § 14.
17. Tracy v. Strong, 2 Conn. 659.
18. Rudulph V. Wagner, 36 Ala. 698;
Loughborough v. McNevin, 74 Cal. 250, 14
Pae. 369, 15 Fac. 773, 5 Am. St. Rep. 435;
[III, D, 1, a]
14:8 [38 Cye.J
TENDER
a tender cannot be made after default where the damages are unliquidated,"
where time is of the essence of the contract/" or where a forfeiture has been
declared,^' or if the time for tendering is limited by statute; ^^ and a promise to
pay in chattels, or in anything of a fluctuating value, must be strictly complied
with as to time, and a tender of the thing to be paid cannot be made before or
after the day fixed for payment.^^ Where an executory contract is silent as to
the time of performance, a tender must be made within a reasonable time.^*
b. Time of Day. To make a tender good as to time of day, the general rule
is that the tenderer must, at the latest time, on the last day of the term of the
contract, before the sun sets, produce the money or goods and offer to comply
with the contract,^^ and the tender must be made a sufficient length of time before
Young V. Daniels, 2 Iowa 126, 63 Am. Dec.
477. See Walker t. Barnes, 1 Marsh. 36, 5
Taunt. 240, 15 Eev. Rep. 655, 1 E. C. L. 131 ;
Leftley v. Mills, 4 T. R. 170, 100 Eng. Re-
print 955.
19. Day v. Laiferty, 4 Ark. 450. See also
Loughborough f. McNevin, 74 Cal. 250, 14
Pac. 369, 15 Pae. 773, 5 Am. St. Rep. 435.
20. Kentucky Distilleries, etc., Co. v. War-
wick Co., 109 Fed. 280, 48 C. C. A. 363. See
also Loughborough r. McNevin, 74 Cal. 250,
14 Pac. 369, 15 Pac. 773, 5 Am. St. Rep.
435.
21. Sylvester t. Holasek, 83 Minn. 362, 86
N. W. 336; Whiteman t. Perkins, 56 Nebr.
181, 76 N. W. 547; Bayley r. Duvall, 2 Fed.
Cas. No. 1,139, 1 Cranch C. C. 283.
After a debt has been satisfied by a sale
of property pledged as security a tender
comes too late. Loomis t. Stave, 72 111.
©23.
22. Clower v,. Fleming, 81 Ga. 247, 7 S. E.
278; Thomas v. Nichols, 127 N. C. 319, 37
S. E. 327.
23. Toulmin v. Sager, 42 Ala. 127; Powe
V. Powe, 42 Ala. 113; White %. Prigmore, 29
Ark. 208; Day f. Lafferty, 4 Ark. 450;
Stucker f. Miller, 5 Litt. (Ky.) 235; Mingus
V. Pritchet, 14 N. C. 78; Wales t. Cooke,
13 N. C. 183.
24. Indiana,. — Conklin v. Smith, 7 Ind.
107, 63 Am. Dec. 416.
Massachusetts. — Atwood v. Cobb, 16 Pick.
227, 26 Am. Dec. 657.
Nebraska. — Coleridge Creamery Co. v. Jen-
kins, 66 Nebr. 129, 92 N. W. 123.
New York.— Buss v. White, 65 N. Y.
565.
Pennsylvania. — Roberts v. Beatty, 2 Penr.
& W. 63, 21 Am. Dec. 410.
Tennessee. — Jones v. Peet, 1 Swan 293.
England. — Ellis v. Thompson, 1 H. & H.
131, 7 L. J. Exch. 185, 3 M. & W. 445.
What is a reasonable time is to be deter-
mined in each case by a view of all the facts
and circumstances attending the transaction.
Roberts v. Mazeppa Mill Co., 30 Minn. 413,
15 N. W. 680.
A failure to formally withdraw the offer
after the expiration of a reasonable time will
not validate a tender made thereafter.
Bowen v. McCarthy, 85 Mich. 26, 48 N. W.
155.
25. Kentucky. — Duckham v. Smith, 5
T. B. Mon. 372; Williams v. Johnson, Litt.
Sel. Cas. 84, 12 Am. Deo. 275; Kendal v.
[Ill, D, 1, a]
Talbot, 1 A. K. Marsh. 321; Johnson v.
Butler, 4 Bibb 97; Colyer v. Hutchings, 2
Bibb 404; Jouett v. Wagnon, 2 Bibb 269, 5
Am. Dec. 602.
Maine. — Wing v. Davis, 7 Me. 31; Aldrich
V. Albee, 1 Me. 120, 10 Am. Dec. 45.
Mississippi. — Bates v. Bates, Walk. 401,
12 Am. Dec. 572.
Rhode Island. — Hall i: Whittier, 10 R. I.
530.
Tennessee. — Tiernan v. Napier, 5 Yerg.
410.
Vermont. — Sweet f. Harding, 19 Vt. 587 ;
Mortin v. Wells, 1 Tyler 381.
England. — - Lancashire v. Kellingworth,
Comyns 116, 92 Eng. Reprint 991, 1 Ld.
Raym. 686, 91 Eng. Reprint 1357, 12 Mod.
529, 88 Eng. Reprint 1498, 3 Salk. 242, 91
Eng. Reprint 862; Wade's Case, 5 Coke 114o,
77 Eng. Reprint 232, 2 Coke Litt. 202o;
Tinckler v. Prentice, 4 Taunt. 549, 13 Rev.
Rep. 684.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 17.
Tender before hour for closing business. —
Upon the question whether a tender must be
made at a convenient time before the expira-
tion of an earlier hour than sunset, whicn
by custom and usage in a particular busi-
ness is the time limited for closing the
daily business, it has been held that where
a contract provided for the delivery of stock
on a specified day, the tender made at the
uttermost convenient time of the day fixed,
before the usual time of shutting the books,
was good. Lancashire v. Kellingworth,
Comyns 116, 92 Eng. Reprint 991, 1 Ld.
Raym. 686, 91 Eng. Reprint 1357, 12 Mod.
529, 88 Eng. Reprint 1498, 3 Salk. 242, 91
Eng. Reprint 862. But in a similar later
case where it appeared that there was more
business that day than could be transacted
before the regular closing hour, and for that
reason the books were again opened after^
that hour, a transfer made before the regular
closing hour was held not a good tender.
The court held that the general rule, which
is that a tender must be made at the utter-
most convenient time of the day, ought not
to be broken through, except in cases of
necessity, and that in the present case there
was no necessity to break through it, be-
cause, as the books were again opened in
the afternoon, the tender ought to have been
made at the uttermost convenient time be-
fore the shutting of the books in the after-
noon. Lancashire v. Kellingworth, Comyns
TENDER
[88 Cyc] 149
the sun sets so that the money may be counted or the goods examined by day-
light; ^° but where no place for delivery is stipulated, it is held that a tender may
be made at any time before midnight; ^' and a tender of specific articles in pay-
ment of a debt made after sunset where the creditor had been absent through
the day has been held good.^' If it happens that the parties meet at the place
at an earlier hour of the last day, a tender may be made at that time.^°
e. Premature Tender. A premature tender is generally held to be unavail-
able for most purposes.^" But where payment may be made "on or before"
a day named,'' or within a certain time,'^ a tender may be made at any time after
the date of the contract.
d. Tender After Action Brought. At common law a tender must be made
by a debtor before the commencement of the action to recover the thing due.''
By statute in some states, however, tender after suit is allowed, usually up to
the commencement of trial," in which event, however, it can be made only in
116, 92 Eng. Reprint 991, 1 Ld. Raym. 686, 91
Eng. Reprint 1357, 12 Mod. 529, 88 Eng. Re-
print 1498, 3 Salk. 242, 91 Eng. Reprint
862; Rutland v. Batty, Str. 777, 93 Eng. Re-
print 842.
26. Aldrich v. Albee, 1 Me. 120, 10 Am.
Dec. 45; Doe v. Paul, 3 C. & P. 613, 14
E. C. L. 744.
27. Smith v. Walton, 5 Houst. (Del.)
141; MeClartey v. Gokey, 31 Iowa 505;
Startup v. Macdonald, 12 L. J. Exch. 477, 6
M. & G. 593, 7 Scott N. R. 269, 46 E. C. L.
593. See also Sweet v. Harding, 19 Vt. 587.
Compare Williams v. Johnson, Litt. Sel.
Cas. (Ky.) 84, 12 Am. Dec. 275; Croninger
t\ Crocker, 62 N. Y. 151.
28. Avery v. Stewart, 2 Conn. 69, 7 Am.
Dec. 240.
29. Aldrich v. Albee, 1 Me. 120, 10 Am.
Dec. 45; Hall v. Whittier, 10 R. I. 530;
Startup r. Macdonald, 12 L. J. Exch. 477,
6 M. & G. 593, 7 Scott N. R. 269, 46 E. C. L.
593; Wade's Case, 5 Coke 144o, 77 Eng.
Reprint 232.
30. California. — Rhorer v. Bila, 83 Gal.
51, 23 Pac. 274.
Connecticut. — ^Abbe v. Goodwin, 7 Conn.
377.
Indiana. — Bowen v. Julius, 141 Ind. 310,
40 N. E. 700; Abshire v. Corey, 113 Ind.
484, 15 N. E. 685.
Maine. — Portland v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co.,
74 Me. 241. But see Eaton v. Emerson, 14
Me. 335.
Massachusetts. — Saunders v. Frost, 5
Pick. 259, 16 Am. Dec. 394; Kingman v.
Pierce, 17 Mass. 247.
Missouri. — Illingworth v. Miltenberger,
11 Mo. 80.
Montana. — Schultz v. O'Rourke, 18 Mont.
418, 45 Pac. 634.
Welraska. — Moore v. Kime, 43 Nebr. 517,
61 N. W. 736.
New Jersey. — Tillou v. Britton, 9 N. J.
L. 120.
New York. — Ellis v. Craig, 7 Johns. Ch. 7.
Wisconsin. — See Moore v. Cord, 14 Wis.
213.
England. — Brown v. Cole, 9 Jur. 290, 14
L. J. Ch. 167, 14 Sim. 427, 37 Eng. Ch. 427,
60 Eng. Reprint 424.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 14.
But see Quynn v. Whetcroft, 3 Harr. &
M. (Md.) 136, 1 Am. Dee. 375.
According to the civil law, where a dis-
tant day of payment is given exclusively for
the benefit of the debtor, the latter may
make a tender of the amount due, before the
time fixed for payment. Ellis V: Craig, 7
Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 7, Pothier Obi. Pt. II,
c. 3, art. 3.
31. Brent v. Fenner, 4 Ark. 160; Barbee
V. Inman, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 420; Sanders v.
Burk, (Va. 1895) 22 S. E. 516.
The phrases " in sixty days," " in sixty
days from date," " in sixty days from day
of the date," are held to mean that the debt
falls due the number of days mentioned
after the date of the contract, and a tender
cannot be made before the end of the period.
Henry v. Jones, 8 Mass. 453.
32. Buffum V. Buffum, 11 N. H. 451; Gil-
man V. Moore, 14 Vt. 457.
33. Nebraska. — Whiteman v. Perkins, 56
Nebr. 181, 76 N. W. 547.
New Jersey. — Levan v. Sternfield, 55
N. J. L. 41, 25 Atl. 854.
Neio yorfe.— Jackson v. Law, 5 Cow. 248.
North Carolina, — Winningham v. Redding,
51 N. C. 126; Murray v. Windley, 29 N. C.
201, 47 Am. Dec. 324.
South Carolina. — Pishburne v. Sanders, 1
Nott & M. 242.
Tennessee. — Miller v. Andrews, 3 Coldw.
380.
Texas.— Berry v. Davis, 77 Tex. 191, 13
S. W. 978, 19 Am. St. Rep. 748; Simon v.
Allen, 76 Tex. 398, 13 S. W. 296.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 18.
Where an action has been discontinued
and another commenced, a tender made after
the discontinuance and before the commence-
ment of the second action is a tender before
the action. Johnson v. Clay, 1 Moore C. P.
200, 7 Taunt. 486, 2 E. C. L. 459; 3 Bl.
Comm. 304, note 19. A tender by plaintiff of
the amount due on a judgment, before it is
pleaded as a set-off, is a tender before
action, although' made after the action was
commenced; a set-off or counter-claim being
not in litigation until it is pleaded. Has-
sam V. Hassam, 22 Vt. 516.
34. See the statutes of the several states.
And see Sweetland v. Tuthill, 54 111. 215;
[III, D, 1, d]
150 [38 CycJ
TENDER
the particular classes of cases mentioned in the statute; ^^ and where the statute
provides that a tender can only be made before the commencement of the trial,
after the trial it comes too late; ^° and a statute authorizing a tender at any time
before judgment is held not applicable to cases where plaintiff is bound to make
a tender previous to suit to have a standing in court. ^^ A tender after action
commenced does not bar the farther prosecution of the action, but if otherwise
sufficient it stops interest and subjects plaintiff to subsequent costs.^*
e. Waiver of Objection to Time. Where a tender comes too late, a refusal
solely upon some collateral ground is a waiver of the objection that the tender
was not made in time; '' and similarly where both parties treat a debt as then
due, the tender being refused upon some other ground, the tenderee cannot defend
on the ground that at the time of the tender the debt was not due.^°
2. Plack — a. Where Place Is Appointed. If, by contract, money is to be
paid or goods are to be delivered at a certain place, a tender may,^' and must,*^ be
made at that place, and a tender at the place is sufficient, although the one to
whom it is to be made be absent at the time." A tender to the person at a place
other than the one designated is good unless objected to on that ground.^*
b. Where no Place Is Appointed. At common law with respect to the pay-
ment of money, or portable articles, where the time but no place of payment is
specified, and no place of payment is fixed by law, the rule is that the tenderer
must seek the tenderee and make a tender to him wherever he can be found,*'
and a tender anywhere to the person of the tenderee is good,*' the tenderer being
Call f. Lothrop, 39 Me. 434; Snyder v.
Quarton, 47 Mich. 211, 10 N. W. 204; Le
More V. Miller, 64 Miss. 204, 1 So. 99;
Kelly V. West, 36 N. Y. Super. Ct. 304;
Hull V. Peters, 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 331; 3rown
V. Ferguson, 2 Den. (N. Y.) 196; Powers v.
Powers, 11 Vt. 262.
35. Stover v. Chasse, 9 Misc. (N. Y.) 45,
29 N. Y. Suppl. 291.
36. Houston v. Sledge, 101 N. C. 640, 8
S. E. 145, 2 L. R. A. 487; Pell v. Chandos,
(Tex. Civ. App. 1894) 27 S. W. 48. And
see Babcock v. Culver, 46 Vt. 715.
A tender of notes in pursuance of an
agreement to accept notes made after the
action was commenced is not a tender after
action brought. Emmons v. Myers, 7 How.
(Miss.) 375. See Heirn ;;. Carron, 11 Sm.
& M. (Miss.) 361, 49 Am. Deo. 65.
37 Farquhar v. lies, 39 La. Ann. 874, 2
So. 791.
38. See Sweetland v. Tuthill, 54 111. 215;
Wagner v. Heckenkamp, 84 111. App. 323 ;
Columbian Bldg. Assoc, v. Crump, 42 Md.
192; Le Flore v. Miller, 64 Miss. 204, 1 So.
99.
39. Hanna v. Eatekin, 43 111. 462; Adams
r. Helm, 55 Mo. 468; Buck v. Burk, 18 N. Y.
337; Cythe v. La Fontain, 51 Barb. (N. Y.)
186; Gould V. Banks, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 562,
24 Am, Dec. 90. But see Friess r. Rider,
24 N. Y. 367, 82 Am. Dec. 308.
40. Wyckoff f. Anthony, 90 N. Y. 442
[affirming 9 Daly 417].
41. Logan v. Hartwell, 5 Kan. 649.
43. Price v. Cockran, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 570;
Adams f. Rutherford, 13 Oreg. 78, 8 Pac.
896; Roberts v. Beatty, 2 Penr. & W. (Pa.)
63, 21 Am. Dec. 410; Saunderson v. Bowes,
14 East 500, 104 Eng. Reprint 693.
If the obligation be a note, a tender at the
place designated is necessary, although the
[III, D, 1, d]
note is not there. McCauley v. Leavitt, 10
Utah 91, 37 Pac. 164.
If the obligation provides for payment at
one of two or more places, the debtor must
give the creditor reasonable notice of his
election. Aldrich v. Albee, 1 Me. 120, 10
Am. Dec. 45; Barrett v. Eller, 51 N. C. 550.
Equity will not supply a defect in a tender
made in a wrong place. King v. Finch, 60
Ind. 420.
43. Eaton, etc., R. Co. v. Hunt, 20 Ind.
457; Balme r. Wambaugh, 16 Minn. 116;
Mahan v. Waters, 60 Mo. 167; Judd v. En-
sign, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 258. But see Smith
V. Smith, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 405, 2 Hill
351.
But calling with the money when the
creditor is absent and leaving a note stating
the object of the visit, where it does not ap-
pear that the note was received, is. no
tender. Rothwell v. Gettys, II Humphr.
(Tenn.) 135.
Where a debt may be paid in specific
articles, readiness at the time and place
designated is a good tender, although the
creditor is not present. Mingus v. Pritehet,
14 N. C. 78; Barney v. Bliss, 1 D. Chipm.
(Vt.) 399, 12 Am. Dee. 696.
44. Union Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Union Mills
Plaster Co., 37 Fed. 286, 3 L. R. A. 90;
Cropp V. Hambleton, Cro. Eliz. 48, 78 Eng.
Reprint 310.
45. Berley v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 82
S. C. 232, 64 S. E. 397; Startup v. Mac-
donald, 12 L. J. Exch. 477, 6 M. & O. 593,
7 Scott N. R. 269, 46 E. C. L. 593; Cranley
V. Hillary, 2 M. & S. 120, 105 Eng. Reprint
327.
46. Bates v. Bates, Walk. (Miss.) 401, 12
Am. Dec. 572; Hunter t. Le Conte, 6 Cow.
(N. Y.) 728; Slingerland v. Morse, 8 Johns.
(N. Y.) 474.
TENDER
[88 Cyc] 151
required to exercise due diligence and good faith to find the tenderee; *' and the
money or portable articles must be tendered at the tenderee's residence if it can
be found; *' but the tenderer is not bound to go out of the state to find the ten-
deree." If the obligation be a merchant's payable on demand in goods, or a
mechanic's payable in his wares, the law implies that the warehouse, store, or
shop, as the case may be, is the place agreed upon by the parties for tender.^"
If the article is ponderous, the tenderer before the day of tender must ascertain
from the tenderee where he will receive it; " and if the creditor cannot be found,
or if he refuses to appoint any place, or to appoint a reasonable place, the debtor
may himself select any suitable and reasonable place and make a delivery there,
with notice to the creditor, if he can be found. ^^
e. Deposit In Bank or Other Depository. A deposit in a bank or other
47. Lehman i~. Moore, 93 Ala. 186, 9 So.
690; Bancroft v. Sawin, 143 Mass. 144, 9
N. E. 539; Leaird v. Smith, 44 N. Y. 618.
See Southworth v. Smith, 7 Cush. (Mass.)
391; Howard v. Holbrook, 9 Bosw. (N. Y.)
237.
48. /Zimots.— Borah v. Curry, 12 111. 66.
Indiana. — Taylor v. Meek, 4 Blackf. 388.
Kentuclcy. — Galloway v. Smith, Litt. Sel.
Cas. 132; Wilmouth v. Fatten, 2 Bibb 280;
Grant v. Groshon, Hard. 85, 3 Am. Dec. 725;
Letcher v. Taylor, Hard. 79; Littell v.
Nichols, Hard. 66; Chambers v. Winn, Ky.
Dec. 166, 2 Am. Dec. 713.
Minnesota. — Morey v. Enke, 5 Minn. 392.
Missouri. — Dameron v. Belt, 3 Mo. 213.
'Sew Hampshire. — Miles v. Eoberts, 34
N. H. 245.
Hew York. — Grussy v. Schneider, 55 How.
Pr. 1S8; Stoker v. Cogswell, 25 How. Pr.
267; Smith v. Smith, 25 Wend. 405; La
Parge v. Rickert, 5 Wend. 187, 21 Am. Dee.
209; Goodwin v. Holbrook, 4 Wend. 377.
North Carolina. — Mingus v. Pritchet, 14
N. C. 78.
OAio.— Wagers v. Dickey, 17 Ohio 439, 49
Am. Dec. 467.
Pennsylvania. — Barr v. Myers, 3 Watts &
S. 295; Roberts t. Beaity, 2 Penr. & W. 63,
21 Am. Dec. 410.
Rhode Island.— Kail v. Whittier, 10 E. I.
530.
Vermont. — Morton v. Wells, 1 Tyler 381.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," §§11, 12.
The place of residence at the time the con-
tract was made is the place where tender
should be made unless the tenderer has
knowledge of a change thereof. Borah v.
Curry, 12 111. 66; Barker v. Jones, 8 N. H.
413. See Wiggin v. Wiggin, 43 N. H. 561,
80 Am. Dec. 192; Veazey v. Whitehouse, 10
N. H. 409; Pickering v. Pickering, 6 N. H.
120.
49. Iowa. — Young v. Daniels, 2 Iowa 126,
63 Am. Dec. 477. But see Crawford f. Paine,
19 Iowa 172.
Maine. — Howard v. Miner, 20 Me. 325.
Massachusetts. — Tasker v. Bartlett, 5
Cush. 359.
Minnesota. — Gill v. Bradley, 21 Minn. 15.
Mississippi.^- Jones v. Perkins, 29 Miss.
139, 64 Am. Dec. 136.
New York. — Houbie v. Volkening, 49 How.
Pr. 169.
Pennsylvania. — Santee v. Santee, 64 Pa.
St. 473; Allshouse v. Ramsay, 6 Whart. 331,
37 Am. Dec. 417.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 11.
And see Beatty v. Brown, 101 Ala. 695, 14
So. 368; Gardner v. Black, 98 Ala. 638, 12
So. 813; Trimble v. Williamson, 49 Ala. 525.
50. Dunn v. Marston, 34 Me. 379; Mason
t\'Briggs, 16 Mass. 453; Rice v. Churchill,
2 Den. (N. Y.) 145; Goodwin v. Holbrook, 4
Wend. (N. Y.) 377; Hughes v. Prewitt, 5
Tex. 264. See also Dandridge v. Harris, 1
Wash. (Va.) 326, 1 Am. Dec. 465.
51. Maine. — Bean v. Simpson, 16 Me. 49,
holding that if the debtor does not inquire
of his creditor where he will receive the
article, a readiness at his own dwelling-
house on the day appointed will not avail
him as a defense.
Minnesota. — Morey v. Enke, 5 Minn. 392.
New Hampshire. — Wiggin v. Wiggin, 43
N. H. 561, 80 Am. Dec. 192; Miles v.
Roberts, 34 N. H. 245; Currier v. Currier,
2 N. H. 75, 9 Am. Dec. 43.
New York. — La Farge v. Rickert, 5 Wend.
187, 21 Am. Dec. 209; Sheldon v. Skinner,
4 Wend. 525; 21 Am. Dec. 161; Barns v.
Graham, 4 Cow. 452, 15 Am. Dec. 394.
North Carolina. — England v. Wither-
spoon, 2 N. C. 361.
Pennsylvania. — Stewart v. Morrow, 1
Grant 204; Roberts v. Beatty, 2 Penr. & W.
63, 21 Am. Dec. 410.
Texas. — Deel v. Berry, 21 Tex. 463, 73
Am. Dec. 236.
Wisconsin. — Mallory v. Lyman, 3 Pinn.
443, 4 Chandl. 143.
England. — Cheney's Case, 3 Leon. 260, 74
Eng. Reprint 672.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," §§11, 12.
Where a creditor on removing from the
state leaves an agent, it is the duty of the
debtor to call upon the agent to appoint a
place. Santee f. Santee, 64 Pa. St. 473.
The fact that the creditor is domiciled
abroad does not absolve the debtor from the
duty of making an inquiry as to where he
will receive the goods. White v. Perley, 15
Me. 470; Bixby v. Whitney, 5 Me. 192.
A creditor need not wait for a request
but may appoint the place immediately after
the execution of the note upon which tender
is to be made. Aldrich v. Albee, 1 Me. 120,
10 Am. Dec. 45.
53. Howard v. Miner, 20 Me. 325; Miles
i\ Eoberts, 34 N. H. 245.
[Ill, D, 2, e]
152 [38 Cyc]
TENDER
designated place of payment on the day fixed of the amount due is a good tender
if the obligation is payable at such bank or depository/' but not otherwise."
E. Necessity That Tender Be Unconditional — l. in General. Where
a person is to perform an act, the obligation to perform which is independent of
any precedent or concurrent act to be performed by the other party, as where
money is to be paid in liquidation of a debt, or the object is to discharge the
tenderer of the obligation, the money or thing to be delivered must be tendered
unconditionally,^^ and a tender accompanied with some condition, performance
of which is impossible,^" or which the tenderer has no right to make," as where
a sum is offered "as a settlement," =' or in full discharge, or as payment in full,^»
53. Redman v. Murrel, 117 La. 516, 42 So.
49; Carley v. Vance, 17 Mass. 389; Riley v.
Cheesman, 75 Hun (N. Y.) 387, 27 N. Y.
Suppl. 453; Hill f. Place, 7 Rob. 389, 5 Abb.
Pr. N. S. 18, 36 How. Pr. 26; Miller f.
New Orleans Bank, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 503, 34
Am. Dec. 571; Cheney t. Libby, 134 U. S. 68,
10 S. Ct. 498, 33 L. ed. 818; Wallace v.
McConnell, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 136, 10 L. ed.
95; Cheney f. Bilby, 74 Fed. 52, 20 C. C. A.
291.
54. Cassville Roller Mill Co. i\ ^tna Ins.
Co., 105 Mo. App. 146, 79 S. W. 720.
A deposit with a justice of the peace for
plaintiff is held not to be a tender. J. H.
North Furniture, etc., Co. v. Davis, 86 Mo.
App. 296.
55. AXabama. — Odum v. Rutledge, etc., R.
Co., 94 Ala. 488, 10 So. 222.
Arkansas. — Cole v. Moore, 34 Ark. 582.
California. — Perkins v. Maier, etc.. Brew-
ery, 134 Cal. 372, 66 Pac. 482; Jones v.
Shuey, (1895) 40 Pac. 17.
Connecticut. — Sanford i'. Bulkley, 30 Conn.
344.
Florida. — Lindsay v. Matthews, 17 Fla.
575.
Georgia. — Morris v. Continental Ins. Co.,
116 Ga. 53, 42 S. B. 474; Elder v. Johnson,
115 Ga. 691, 42 S. E. 51; De Graffenreid v.
Menard, 103 Ga. 651, 30 S. E. 560.
Illinois. — Pulsifer f. Shepard, 36 111. 513;
Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Stinson, 86
111. App. 668.
Indiana. — Storey v. Krewson, 55 Ind. 397,
23 Am. Rep. 668; Rose r. Duncan, 49 Ind.
269.
Iowa.— Breja v. Pryne, 94 Iowa 755, 64
N. W. 669; Hopkins v. Gray, 51 Iowa 340, 1
N. W. 637.
Kansas. — Crane t". Renville State Bank,
73 Kan. 287, 85 Pac. 285; Shaw v. Sears, 3
Kan. 242.
Kentucky. — Nantz f. Lober, 1 Duv. 304;
Samuels v. Simmons, 60 S. W. 937, 22 Ky. L.
Rep. 1586.
Maine. — Brown v. Gilmore, 8 Me. 107, 22
Am. Dec. 223.
Massachusetts. — Chapin v. Chapin, (1894)
36 N. E. 746.
Michigan. — See Parks v. Allen, 42 Mich.
482, 4 N. W. 227.
Mississippi. — Harmon r. Magee, 57 Miss.
410.
Missouri. — Ruppel t. Missouri Guarantee
Sav., etc., Assoc, 158 Mo. 613, 59 S. W. 1000;
Henderson r. Cass County, 107 Mo. 50, 18
[III, D, 2, e]
S. W. 992; Kitchen f. Clark, 1 Mo. App.
430.
Nebraska. — Schrandt v. Young, 62 Nebr.
254, 86 N, W. 1085; Te Poel v. Shutt, 57
Nebr. 592, 78 N. W. 288 ; McEldon v. Patton,
4 Nebr. (Unoff.) 259, 93 N. W. 938.
New Jersey. — Bidwell ;;. Garrison, (Ch.
1897) 36 Atl..941.
New York. — Cornell r. Hayden, 114 N. Y.
271, 21 N. E. 417; Persons v. Gardner, 122
N. Y. App. Div. 167, 106 N. Y. Suppl. 616;
Cromwell r. Burr, 12 N.Y.St. 132; Heelas v.
Slevin, 53 How. Pr. 356; Cashman v. Martin,
50 How. Pr. 337.
North Carolina. — Rives r. Dudley, 56 N. C.
126, 67 Am. Dec. 231.
Ohio. — Redfern i: Uluery, 12 Ohio Cir. Ct.
87, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 435.
Pennsylvania. — Wagenblast v. McKean, 2
Grant 393; Eckman v. Hildebrand, 1 Lane.
L. Rev. 21.
South Carolina. — Smith v. Keels, 15 Rich.
318.
South Dakota. — Brace v. Doble, 3 S. D.
110, 52 N. W. 586.
Texas. — Flake r. Nuse, 51 Tex. 98.
Vermont. — Holton v. Brown, 18 Vt. 224,
46 Am. Dec. 148.
Wisconsin. — Mann -v. Roberts, 126 Wis.
142, 105 N. W. 785 ; Elderkin v. Fellows, 60
Wis. 339, 19 N. W. 101; Hunter f. Warner,
1 Wis. 141.
United States. — Coghlan v. South Carolina
R. Co., 32 Fed. 316; Boulton v. Moore, 14
Fed. 922, 11 Biss. 500.
England. — Greenwood r. Sutcliffe. [1892]
1 Ch. 1, 61 L. J. Ch. 59, 65 L. T. Rep. N. S.
797, 40 Wkly. Rep. 241; Jennings v. Major,
8 C. & P. 61, 34 E. C. L. 610; Mitchell v.
King, 6 C. & P. 237, 25 E. C. L. 412; Peacock
V. Dickerson, 2 C. & P. 51, 12 E. C. L. 445;
Brady f. Jones, 2 D. & R. 305, 16 E. C. L.
87.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tender," § 33.
56. Brink v. Freoff, 40 Mich. 610; Balme
v. Wambaugh, 16- Minn. 116; Malone v.
Wright, 90 Tex. 49, 36 S. W. 420 [modifying
(Civ. App. 1896) 34 S. W. 455].
57. Odum v. Rutledge, etc., R. Co., 94 Ala.
488, 10 So. 222; Rives r. Dudley, 56 N. 0.
126, 67 Am. Dec. 231 ; Flake v. Nuse, 51 Tex.
98.
.58. Martin v. Bott, 17 Ind. App. 444, 46
N. E. 151 ; Mitchell r. King, 6 C. & P. 237, 25
E. C. L. 412.
59. Illinois. — Hess v. Peck, 111 111. App.
111.
TENDER
[88 Cye.J 153
is invalid. But the tenderer may upon making a tender accompany it with a
declaration, not a condition, that it satisfied the debt,'" if the expression used
amounts to no more than an assertion of what the tenderer claims to be due; "
and a tender of performance may be accompanied by such conditions as to accept-
ance as are, by the contract, conditions precedent to be performed by the party
to whom the tender is made,°^ and which therefore the tenderer has a clear right
to exact; °' and where mutual and concurrent acts are to be performed, the word
"tender," as used in such connection, does not mean the same kind of offer as
where it is used with reference to an offer to pay an ordinary debt due in money;
but it only means readiness and willingness, accompanied with ability to do the
thing required, and notice of a readiness to perform providing the other party
will concurrently do the thing which he is requested to do,'* and it has been held
that a tender may be made conditional upon proof being produced that the party
holding the claim has a right to receive payment, if circumstances exist which
reasonably induce a belief in the tenderer that the tenderee has not such a right. °^
A creditor, accepting money tendered conditionally, assents to the condition, and
cannot accept the money and reject the conditions on which it was tendered. °°
2. Amount Offered Must Be Admitted to Be Due ; Payment Under Protest. The
sum tendered must be admitted by the tenderer to be due." It has been held,
Maine. — Brown *. Gilmore, 8 Me. 107, 22
Am. Dfec. 223.
Minnesota. — Moore r. Norman, 52 Minn.
83, 53 N. W. 809, 38 Am. St. Rep. 526, 18
L. R. A. 359.
Missouri. — Henderson v. Cass County, 107
Mo. 50, 18 S. W. 992.
Nebraska. — Tompkins v. Baltic, 11 Nebr.
147, 7 N. W. 747, 38 Am. Rep. 361.
Nevada. — -State v. Carson City Sav. Bank,
17 Nev. 146, 50 Pac. 703.
New Yorfc.— Noyes v. WyckofF, 114 N. Y.
204, 21 N. E. 158; Shiland v. Loeb, 58 N. Y.
App. Div. 565, 69 N. Y. Suppl. 11; Brooklyn
Bank v. De Grauw, 23 Wend. 342, 35 Am.
Dec. 569; Wood v. Hitchcock, 20 Wend.
47.
Tennessee. — Love v. Smith, 4 Yerg. 117.
Vermont. — Draper v. Hitt, 43 Vt. 439, 5
Am. Rep. 292; Miller v. Holden, 18 Vt.
337.
Wisconsin. — Elderkin v. Fellows, 60 Wis.
339, 19 N. W. 101.
United States. — Hepburn v. Auld, 1 Cranch
321, 2 L. ed. 122.
England. — Henwood v. Oliver, 1 Q. B. 409,
1 G. & D. 25, 10 L. J. Q. B. 158, 41 E. C. L.
601; Hough V. May, 4 A. & E. 954, 2 Harr.
& W. 33, 5 L. J. K. B. 186, 6 N. & M. 535,
31 E. C. L. 415, 111 Eng. Reprint 1042;
Strong V. Harvey, 3 Bing. 304, 11 Moore C. P.
72, 4 L. J. C. P. 0. S. 57, 11 E. C. L.
153; Evans v. Judkins, 4 Campb. 156;
Sutton V. Hawkins, 8 C. & P. 259, 34 E. C. L.
722; Gordon i\ Cox, 7 C. & P. 172, 32
E. C. L. 557 ; Peacock v. Dickerson, 2 C. & P.
51, 12 E. C. L. 445; Cheminant v. Tliornton,
2 C. & P. 50, 12 E. C. L. 444; Thomas v.
Evans, 10 East 101, 10 Rev. Rep. 229, 103
Eng. Reprint 714; Field v. Newport, etc., R.
Co., 3 H. & N. 409, 27 L. J; Exch. 396.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tender," § 33.
Offering a sum as a half year's rent was
held to be conditional, for if taken it would
have been an admission of the amount of
rent due. Hastings v. Thorley, 8 C. & P. 573,
34 E. C. L. 899. But see Jones v. Bridgman,
39 L. T. Rep. N. S. 50O.
60. Foster v. Drew, 39 Vt. 51; Preston V.
Grant, 34 Vt. 201; Bowen v. Owen, 11 Q. B.
130, 11 Jur. 972, 17 L. J. Q. B. 5, 63 E. C. L.
130 ; Robinson v. Ferreday, 8 C. & P. 752, 34
E. C. L. 1001.
61. Foster v. Drew, 39 Vt. 51; Preston v.
Grant, 34 Vt. 201.
62. Wendell v. New Hampshire Bank, 9
N. H. 404; Wheelock v. Tanner, 39 N. Y.
481 ; Engelbach v. Simpson, 12 Tex. Civ.
App. 188, 33 S. W. 596 (where a vendor's
lien was expressly retained in the convey-
ance, and a tender of the amount secured by
the lien, upon condition that the vendor fur-
nish a release of the lien, was held good) ;
Harding v. Giddings, 73 Fed. 335, 19 C. C. A.
508. See Wadleigh v. Phelps, 149 Cal. 627,
87 Pac. 93. And see infra, note 74.
Where an order by a creditor on a bailee
is necessary before the bailee will surrender
the property, a tender of the debt may be
made conditional upon receiving such an
order. Johnson «. Cranage, 45 Mich. 14, 7
N. W. 188.
63. Odum i: Rutledge, etc., R. Co., 94 Ala.
488, 10 So. 222.
64. Smith v. Lewis, 26 Conn. 110; Taylor
V. Mathews, 53 Fla. 776, 44 So. 146; Shouse
v. Doane, 39 Fla. 95, 21 So. 807; Cook v.
Doggett, 2 Allen (Mass.) 439; Hampton v.
Speekenagle, 9 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 212, 11 Am.
Dec. 704; Washburn v. Dewey, 17 Vt. 92.
65. Kennedy v. Moore, 91 Iowa 39, 58
N. W. 1066.
66. Bahrenburg v. Conrad Schopp Fruit
Co., 128 Mo. App. 526, 107 S. W. 440 ; Bull v.
Parker, 2 Dowl. P. C. N. S. 345, 7 Jur. 282,
12 L. J. Q. B. 93.
67. Kuhns v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 65 Iowa
528, 22 N. W. 661; Latham v. Hartford, 27
Kan. 249; Wood v. Hitchcock, 20 Wend.
(N. Y.) 47; Simmons v. Wilmott, 3 Esp. 91.
See Elderkin v. Fellows, 60 Wis. 339, 19
N. W. 101.
[HI, E, 2]
154 [38 Cyc]
TENDER
however, that a tender under protest, reserving the right to dispute the amount
due, if it does not impose any conditions on the tenderee, is good."*
3. Tender Conditioned Upon the Surrender of Evidence of Indebtedness or
Security. An offer of the amount due on a negotiable instrument is held not a
good tender where its acceptance is made conditional on the surrender of the
instrument, °° although there is authority to the contrary,™ and to the effect that
demanding a negotiable instrument but not making its surrender a condition
to the tender of the money due thereon does not make a tender conditional and
therefore invalid.'^ It is held that where there is no dispute as to the amount
due, a tender may be made by an accommodation indorser of a note," or by an
accepter of a bill,'' to depend upon the surrender of the note or bills. A tender
of the amount of a mortgage debt may be coupled with a condition that the
mortgagee surrender the mortgage and note or bond, or execute a release, can-
cellation, or satisfaction of the mortgage.'*
4. Demanding Receipt or Discharge. A debtor cannot insist upon a receipt
in full in respect to the particular claim upon which the tender is made, or a receipt
in full for all demands, and if he does so he vitiates the tender; '^ nor can the offer
be made conditional upon the debtor receiving a discharge.'® A tender is held to
be vitiated by coupling it with a demand for. a receipt for the sum offered," unless,
68. Atchison, etc., E. Co. r. Roberts, 3
Tex. Civ. App. 370, 22 S. W. 183 (where
freight charges were tendered under protest);
Sweny v. Smith, L. R. 7 Eq. 324, 38 L. J.
Ch. 446 ; Scott v. Uxbridge, etc., R. Co., L. E.
1 C. P. 596, 12 Jur. N. S. 602, 35 L. J. C. P.
293, 13 L. T. Rep. N. S. 596, 14 Wkly. Rep.
893; Manning f. Lunn, 2 C. & K. 13, 61
E. C. L. 13; Peers i\ AUen, 19 Grant Ch.
(U. C.) 98. See Greenwood v. Sutclifife,
[1892] 1 Ch. 1, 61 L. J. Ch. 59, 65 L. T.
Rep. N. S. 797, 40 Wkly. Rep. 241 (where the
debtor, on making a tender to a mortgagee in
possession, reserved the right to review their
account) ; Thorpe r. Burgess, 8 Dowl. P. C.
603 (where the debtor in offering a sum said
" that it was more than was due, but that
plaintiff might take it all," and the tender
was lield good).
69. Storey v. Krewson, 55 Ind. 397, 23 Am.
Rep. 668; Pales r. Russell, 16 Pick. (Mass.)
315; Baker v. Wheaton, 5 Mass. 509, 4 Am.
Dec. 71 ; Moore r. Korman, 52 Minn. 83, 53
N. W. 809, 38 Am. St. Rep. 526, 18 L. R. A.
359; Benson Bank v. Hove, 45 Minn. 40, 47
N. W. 449; Holton f. Brown, 18 Vt. 224, 46
Am. Dec. 148.
70. Strafford f. Welch, 59 N. H. 46; Hey-
wood K. Hartshorn, 55 N. H. 476; Halpin v.
Phenix Ins. Co., 118 N. Y. 165, 23 N. E. 482;
Bailey v. Buchanan County, 115 N. Y. 297, 22
jSr. E. 155, 6 L. p. A. 562. See Wilder v.
Seelye, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 408; Hansard f.
Robinson, 7 B. & C. 90, 9 D. & R. 860, 5
L. J. K. B. 0. S. 242, 14 E. C. L. 50, 108
Eng. Reprint 659.
71. Buffum V. Buffum, 11 N". H. 451. See
Moore t. Vail, 13 N". J. Eq. 295.
72. Osterman r. Goldstein, 32 Misc. (N. Y.)
676, 66 N. Y. Suppl. 506 [reversing on other
grounds 31 Misc. 501, 64 N. Y. Suppl.
555].
73. Hansard v. Robinson, 7 B. & C. 90, 9
D. & R. 860, 5 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 242, 14
E. C. L. 50, 108 Eng. Reprint 659.
74. See Mortgages, 27 Cyc. 1407.
[Ill, E, 2]
75. Alabama. — Commercial F. Ins. Co. v.
Allen, 80 Ala. 571, 1 So. 202.
Arkansas. — Jacoway v. Hall, 67 Ark. 340,
55 S. W. 12..
Colorado. — Butler v. Hinckley, 17 Colo.
523, 30 Pac. 250.
lovM. — West V. Farmers' Mut. Ins; Co.,
117 Iowa 147, 90 N. W. 523, holding that
Code (1873), § 3063, providing that a ten-
derer may demand a receipt for the money
tendered, did not authorize him to demand
a receipt in full.
Massachusetts. — Thayer v. Brackett, 12
Mass. 450.
New York. — Wood i-. Hitchcock, 20 Wend.
47.
South Carolina. — Siter v. Robinson, 2
Bailey 274.
United States. — Hepburn v. Auld, 1 Cranch
321, 2 L. ed. 122; Perkins l: Beck, 19 Fed.
Cas. No. 10,984, 4 Cranch C. C. 68.
England. — Bowen v. Owen, 11 Q. B. 130,
11 Jur. 972, 17 L. J. Q. B. 5, 63 E. C. L.
130; Finch v. Miller, 5 C. B. 428, 57 E. C. L.
428; Griffith r. Hodges, 1 C. & P. 419,
12 E. C. L. 246 ; Foord i;. Noll, 2 Dowl. P. C.
N. S. 617, 12 L. J. C. P. 2; Glasscott l-. Day,
5 Esp. 48, 8 Rev. Rep. 828; Higham v. Bad-
dely, Gow. 213; Cole !;. Blake, Peake N. P.
179, 3 Rev. Rep. 681.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 34.
Receipt required by law.— Where the stat-
ute requires a receipt to be given, as in the
case of the payment of taxes, a tender of
the amount due will relieve the taxpayer from
a liability for penalties, even though made
conditional upon a receipt being furnished.
State V. Central Pac. R. Co., 21 Nev. 247 30
Pac. 686.
76. Richardson v. Boston Chemical Labora-
tory, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 42.
77. Sanford v. Bulklev, 30 Conn. 344;
Roosevelt v. Bull's Head Bank, 45 Barb.
(N. Y.) 579; Holton v. Brown, 18 Vt. 224,
46 Am. Dec. 148. See Kitchen v. Clark 1
Mo. App. 430. But see Brock v. Jones, 16
TENDER
[38 Cye.j 155
as is the case in a few jurisdictions, a statute exists which allows a demand for a
receipt.'*
F. By Whom Made — l. In General. A tender to be valid must be made
by the debtor or someone representing him," and a tender by a stranger to the
contract is invalid/" But a tender may be made by an attorney, agent, or other
person authorized to make it on behalf of the debtor,*' and a tender may be made
for an infant by his guardian; '^ and where the right to make a tender does not
cease upon the death of a person, a tender may be made by his personal repre-
sentatives, after qualification,*^ but not before."* A third person who has for a
consideration agreed to pay the debt of another may tender the amount of the
debt; ^ but where a tender is made by a third person, the creditor must be informed
on whose behalf it is made, and if he is not so informed the tender is invalid."
2. Joint Debtor. A tender may be made by one of two or more joint
debtors," and it seems that a joint tender of a gross sum by debtors bound
severally is good.**
Tex. 461 (criticizing this rule) ; Jones *.
Arthur, 8 Dowl. P. C. 442, 4 Jur. 859 {where
a check was inclosed in a letter with the re-
quest that a receipt be sent baclc, and the
tender was held good for th? reason that the
check was placed beyond the control of the
debtor).
Waiver. — By failing at the time to object
to a tender on the ground that, a receipt is
demanded and assigning another reason for
refusing is a waiver of the objection that a
receipt was required. People f. Edwards, 56
Hun (N. Y.) 377, 10 N. Y. Suppl. 335; Rich-
ardson !/•. Jackson, 9 Dowl. P. C. 715, 10
L. J. Exch. 303', 8 M. & W. 298; Cole v.
Blake, Peake N. P. 179, 3 Rev. Eep. 681;
Lockridge v. Lacey, 30 U. C. Q. B. 494.
A tender, coupled with a demand for a re-
ceipt for a larger sum than has been paid, is
not a sufficient tender. Rude v. Levy, 43
Colo. 482, 96 Pac. 560, 127 Am. St. Rep. 123,
24 L. R. A. N. S. 91.
78. West V. Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co., 117
Iowa 147, 90 N. W. 523, holding, however,
that such a statute does not permit a demand
for a receipt in full. See State f. Central
Prc. R. Co., 21 Nev. 247, 30 Pac. 686.
79. Mahler v. Newbaur, 32 Cal. 168, 91
Am. Dec. 571; McDougald v. Dougherty, 11
Ga. 570; Rowell v. Jewett, 73 Me. 365 ; Harris
V. Jex, 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 232; Jones f. Moore,
1 Edw. (N. Y.) 632. But see Brown v.
Dysinger, 1 Rawle (Pa.) 408, holding that
a tender of money for an infant by his
uncle is good, although not appointed guard-
ian at the time of tender.
Assignees and receivers of bankrupts may
make a tender of the amount due upon liens
upon the bankrupt's property belonging to
the estate. Davies v. Dow, 80 Minn. 223, 83
N. W. 50. But an assignment in insolvency
does not deprive the debtor of his right of
making a tender of the amount due upon a
lien upon property belonging to the estate.
Trimble v. Williamson, 49 Ala. 525, holding
also that a judgment creditor may redeem,
providing his lien attached before the bank-
ruptcy. See Davies v. Dow, 80 Minn. 223,
83 N. W. 50.
80. Mahler v. Newbaur, 32 Cal. 168, 91
Am. Dec. 571; McDougald v. Dougherty, 11
Ga. 570; Sinclair u. Learned, 51 Mich. 335,
16 N. W. 672; Harris v. Jex, 66 Barb. (N. Y.)
232.
Tenders held to be by stranger and thus
invalid see McDougald «. Dougherty, 11 Ga.
570; Watkins v. Ashwicke, Cro. Eliz. 132, 78
Eng. Reprint 389.
An inhabitant of a town or other political
subdivision whose property is liable to seizure
and sale to satisfy a poor rate has such a
direct interest as will entitle him to make a
tender of the amount due therefor. Kinoaid
V. Brunswick School Dist. No. 4, 11 Me. 138.
81. Arnold t". Empire Mut. Annuity, etc.,
Ins. Co., 3 Ga. App. 685, 60 S. E. 470 (under
express statutory provision) ; Wyllie V. Mat-
thews, 60 Iowa 187, 14 N. W. 232; Keystone
Lumber, etc., Mfg. Co. f. Jenkinson, 69 Mich.
220, 37 N. W. 198.
A tender may be made by one joint agent
for all. St. Paul Div. No. 1 S. 0. T. v.
Brown, 11 Minn. 356.
Waiver. — An objection that the agent mak-
ing the tender did not produce his authority
is waived unless proof of his authority is
called for at the time of the tender. Lamp-
ley V. Weed, 27 Ala. 621; Couthway v. Berg-
haus, 25 Ala. 393.
' 82. Watkins v. Ashwicke, Cro. Eliz. 132,
78 Eng. Reprint 389. See Brown c Dy-
singer, 1 Rawle (Pa.) 408.
A master to whom a minor is apprenticed
cannot make a tender for him, a parent be-
ing alive. See Com. v. Kendig, 1 Serg. &
R. (Pa.) 366.
83. Sharp i\ Garesche, 90 Mo. App. 233;
Rearich v. Swjnehart, 11 Pa. St. 233, 51 Am.
Dec. 540.
84. McDougald f. Dougherty, 11 Ga. 570,
where a tender made by the widow before
she was appointed an administratrix was
held bad.
85. Bell V. Mendenhall, 71 Minn. 331, 73
N. W. 1086.
86. Mahler v. Newbaur, 32 Cal. 168, 91
Am. Dec. 571.
87. Winter v. Atkinson, 28 La. Ann. 650.
But see Bender v. Bean, 52 Ark. 132, 12
S. W. 180, 241.
88. See Hall v. Norwalk F. Ins. Co., 57
Conn. 105, 17 Atl. 356.
[Ill, F, 2]
156 [38 CycJ
TENDER
3. Ratification of Unauthorized Tender. A tender by a person acting without
authority may be ratified. '°
G. To Whom Made — 1. In General. A tender must in general be made
to the creditor/" to the person designated in the contract/' or to one duly author-
ized to receive tender; °^ and where an obligation has been assigned, the tender
must be made to the assignee, provided the debtor has notice of the assignment."'
Money due the estate of a deceased person may be tendered to the executor or
administrator as the case may be.°^
2. To Agent, Attorney, or Servant. A tender to an agent authorized to
receive payment has the same effect as a tender to the principal, °^ although the
89. Kincaid v. Brunswick School Dist.
No. 4, 11 Me. 188 (holding, however, that
the operation of this rule should be limited
to cases in which the tenderee has recognized
the tender and impliedly accepted it) ;
Forderer v. Schmidt, 154 Fed. 475, 84 C. C. A.
426.
90. Hornby c. Cramer, 12 How. Pr. (N. Y.)
490. See Grussy r. Schneider, 55 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 188, where the debtor was advised
in advance that the one to whom he made
the tender was not authorized to receive the
money.
A court of equity will not supply the de-
fect in a tender where it is made to the
wrong party. King v. Finch, 60 Ind. 420.
Tender to real, not ostensible, creditor.—
Where plaintiflf was indebted to defendant,
and the latter conspired with a third person
to defraud plaintiff by inducing him to ex-
ecute a bill of sale to the third person by
representing that it was a mortgage, a
tender rnade by plaintiflf in order to obtain
possession of the property conveyed by the
bill of sale was properly made to defendant,
who was the beneficiary of the fraud. Harris
V. Staples, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 89 S. W.
801.
The fact that the creditor was deaf, and
could only be made to understand by signs
and movements of the lips, did not dis-
qualify him from receiving a tender. Eober-
son V. Clevenger, 111 Mo. App. 622, 86 S. W.
512.
91. Te Poel v. Shutt, 57 Nebr. 592, 78
N. W. 288.
93. Boyee v. Prichett, 6 Dana (Ky.) 231.
And see Mi/ro, III, G, 2.
A tender of anything due a carporation
should be made to the ofiicer authorized to
receive it, .although there seems to be no
uniform rule or custom relative to what
officer of a corporation has such authority.
A tender to an officer of a corporation act-
ing in place of its treasurer has been held to
be a sufficient tender to the corporation
(Louisville E. Co. v. Williams, 109 S. W.
874, 33 ^y. L. Eep. 168), and a tender to
a president, of the amount due upon an
assessment upon the stock, was held good,
where made at the office of the company and
no objection was made that the president
had no authority to represent the company
(Mitchell r. Vermont Copper Min. Co., 67
N. Y. 280 [affirming 40 N. Y. Super. Ct.
406] ) , and a tender to a local secretary and
treasurer of a building and loan association
[III, F, 3]
was held good (Smith v. Old Dominion
Bldg., etc., Assoc, 119 N. C. 257, 26 S. E.
40), and where the superintendent and gen-
eral manager of a company was the only
agent with whom a third person contracted,
the superintendent was the one to whom a
tender could be made by the third person
(Birmingham Paint, etc., Co. v. Crampton,
(Ala. 1905) 39 So. 1020).
93. Flanigan v. Seelye, 53 Minn. 23, 55
N. W. 115. But see Smith v. Kelley, 27 Me.
237, 46 Am. Dec. 595.
A tender to the payee of a note after he
has transferred it is bad. Goss v. Emerson,
23 N. H. 38.
If an assignee refuses a tender and it is
witiin the power of the assignor to perform,
a tender should then be made to him.
Dustan v. McAndrew, 10 Bosw. (N. Y.) 135
[affirmed in 44 N. Y. 72].
94. Parker v. Lincoln, 12 Mass. 16; Eat-
cliflf V. Davies, Cro. Jac. 244, 79 Eng. Ee-
print 210.
A tender to a person before he qualifies
as executor is not good. Todd v. Parker, 1
N. ,L L. 45.
95. Dunlop V. Funk, 3 Harr. & M. (Md.)
318; Goodland v. Blewith, 1 Campb. 477, 10
Eev. Eep. 731 ; Moflfat v. Parsons, 1 Marsh.
55, 5 Taunt. 307, 15 Eev. Eep. 506, 1 E.
C. L. 164; Harper v. Peterson, 14 U. C.
C. P. 538.
The debtor can elect whether to tender to
the agent or to the creditor. Hoyt v. Hall,
3 Bosw. (N. Y.) 42. See Hoyt v. Byrnes, 11
Me. 475.
The burden of proving the agency, if de-
nied, is upon the debtor. See Garnett v.
Meyers, 65 Nebr. 280, 91 N. W. 400, 94
N. W. 803; Smith v. Kidd, 68 N. Y. 130, 23
Am. Eep. 157.
If the agent be instructed not to receive
the money until certain conditions are com-
plied with, which conditions if annexed to
the acceptance by the principal would not
justify his refusing, a tender to the agent
is good. Crawford v. Osman, 94 Mich. 533,
54 N. W. 284.
Tender to bank. — If the evidence of an
obligation is lodged with a bank to be sur-
rendered on receiving payment, a tender may
be made to the bank. Mahan v. Waters, 60
Mo. 167; Adams v. Hackensack Imp. Com-
mission, 44 N. J. L. 638, 43 Am. Eep. 406;
Cheney v. Libby, 134 U. S. 68, 10 S. Ct.
498, 33 L. ed. 818. If not lodged with the
bank, any sum received by the bank to be
TENDER
[38 Cyc] 167
debtor believed the agent to be the real party in interest. °° Similarly a tender
may be made to an attorney with whom the demand has been lodged for collec-
tion/' but not to an attorney whose authority is so restricted as not to include
a power to accept tender,'* although a tender to an attorney who is in fact
adequately authorized is sufficient even though he disclaims authority.'" But
the tender as in other cases must be of the full amount of the debt.' The general
rule is that a tender to a clerk in a store, of the amount due for goods purchased
at such store, is equivalent to a tender to the proprietor; ^ but a tender to a
mere servant without actual or apparent authority to receive the money is
insufficient,' notwithstanding the fact that the tenderee is at the time absent
from the state.*
3. To Joint Creditor. A tender of the joint debt to one of several joint
creditors is a tender to all,^ and if a person who is indebted to creditors
severally in different sums tenders a gross sum to all of them assembled together,
and the tender is objected to upon the ground of insufficiency of amount, other
applied on the instrument is received as the
agent of the payer. Ward v. Smith, 7
Wall. (U. S.) 447, 19 L. ed. 207. Where a
bank inadvertently gave the maker of a
note payable at the bank notice of the time
of its maturity, the note being there as a
special deposit and not for collection, a
tender to the bank was held insufficient.
King V. Finch, 60 Ind. 420.
A tender to the creditor's family has been
held good under circumstances indicating
that the creditor intended to render tender
impossible. Judd v. Ensign, 6 Barb. (N. Y.)
258.
Authority of agent to collect or receive
payment see Pbincipal and Agent, 31 Cyc.
1368.
96. Conrad v. Grand Grove U. A. O. D.,
64 Wis. 258, 25 N. W. 24.
97. Louisiana. — Billiot v. Robinson, 13
La. Ann. 529; Mudd v. Stille, 6 La. 17.
Massachusetts. — Mclniffe v. Wheelock, 1
Gray 600.
Minnesota. — Salter v. Shove, 60 Minn.
483, 62 N. W. 1126.
New Hampshire. — Thurston v. Blaisdell,
8 N. H. 367.
New York. — Osterman v. Goldstein, 31
Misc. 501, 64 N. Y. Suppl. 555 [reversed on
other grounds in 32 Misc. 676, 66 N. Y.
Suppl. 506] ; Jackson v. Crafts, 18 Johns.
110.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tender," § 10. See
also Attoenet and Client, 4 Cyc. 947 text
and note 92.
Tender to attorney's clerk. — Where an at-
torney demands that payment be made at
his office, a tender to his clerk in the office
in his absence is good. Wilmot v. Smith,
3 C. & P. 453, M. & M. 238, 31 Rev. Rep.
732, 14 E. C. L. 659; Kinton v. Braith-
waite, 5 Dowl. P. C. 101, 2 Gale 48, 5 L. J.
Exch. 165, 1 M. & W. 310, Tyrw. & G. 945.
But where the attorney wrote that the
money " must be paid to me," a tender to a
clerk who said he could not take the money
as his employer was out was held bad.
Watson V. Hetherington, 1 C. & K. 36, 47
E. C. L. 36. And it is held that where a
managing clerk disclaims authority to re-
ceive payment, a tender to the clerk is in-
sufficient. Finch V. Boning, 4 C. P. D. 143,
40 L. T. Rep. N. S. 484, 27 Wkly. Rep. 872;
Bingham v. Allport, 2 L. J. K. B. 86, 1
N. & M. 398.
If an attorney is at home, sick, the debtor
should either make a tender to the person in
charge of the office or call at the abode of
the attorney or upon the creditor. Francis
V. Deming, 59 Conn. 108, 21 Atl. 1006.
Costs imposed as a condition of opening
up a default may be tendered to the at-
torney. Wolff V: Canadian Pac. R. Co., 89
Cal. 332, 26 Pac. 825.
98. Tuthill V. Morris, 81 N. Y. 94.
99. Mclniffe v. Wheelock, 1 Gray (Mass.)
600. But see Wilmot v. Smith, 3 C. & P.
453, M. & M. 238, 31 Rev. Rep. 732, 14 E.
C. L. 659.
1. Chipman v. Bates, 5 Vt. 143.
2. Hoyt V. Byrnes, 11 Me. 475; Moffat v.
Parsons, 5 Taunt. 307, 15 Rev. Rep. 506, 1
E. C. L. 164.
Where a creditor demanded that payment
be made at his office it was held that such
demand amounted to authority for the clerk
there to receive payment. Kinton v. Braith-
waite, 5 Dowl. P. C. 101, 2 Gale 48, 5 L. J.
Exch. 165, 1 M. & W. 310, Tyrw. & G. 945.
Although a clerk was instructed not to re-
ceive the money because the claim had been
placed with an attorney for collection, the
tender was held good. Moffat v. Parsons, 1
Marsh. 55, 5 Taunt. 307, 15 Rev. Rep. 506,
1 E. C. L. 164.
3. Thurber v. Jewett, 3 Mich. 295 ; Jewett
V. Earle, 53 N. Y. Super. Ct. 349. But see
Anonymous, 1 Esp. 349.
4. McGuire v. Bradley, 118 111. App. 59.
5. Flanigan v. Seelye, 53 Minn. 23, 55
N. W. 115; Carman v. Pultz, 21 N. Y. 547
Wyckoff V. Anthony, 9 Daly (N. Y.) 417
Dawson v. Ewing, 16 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 371
Prescott V. Everts, 4 Wis. 314.
A tender to one cotenant is a tender to
all (Loddiges v. Lister, 1 L. T. Rep. N. S.
548), and where tenants in common ap-
peared and contested certain proceedings
without objecting that it should have been
against them severally, a tender in such
proceedings to one was held good (Dyckman
V. New York, 5 N. Y. 434).
[Ill, G, 3]
158 [38 CycJ
TENDER
objections to the tender are waived, and if the amount be in fact suflB.cient the
tender is good.°
H. Tender of Specific Articles. Where the debt is payable in specific
articles, the debtor must, at the time of payment, have the articles at the place
of payment,' set apart and separated for identification; * and it is not enough
that the tenderer has a large quantity at the place of tender," whether the tenderee
is there to receive them or not,'" and the tenderee must be given a reasonable
time and opportunity to ascertain his rights and examine the articles if he requests
it." If the debt is payable ia either of two kinds of property, the tender must
be wholly of one kind or of the other," if payable in several kinds, the tender must
be made of all the kinds and not of some only." Property required by law to
lae surveyed, inspected, or sealed must be surveyed, inspected, or sealed before
it is tendered."
IV. KEEPING Tender good.
A. Necessity. Where the debt remains after the tender, a tender of money
to be available to the party tendering must be kept good, otherwise it is aban-
doned,^^ and a tender of money must be kept good if it is to be made the basis for
6. Black v. Smith, Peake N. P. 88, 3 Rev.
Rep. 661.
7. Connecticut. — Smith v. Loomis, 7
Conn. 110.
District of Columbia. — Hughes v. Esch-
baek, 7 D. C. 66.
Iowa. — SpaflFord v. Stutsman, 9 Iowa 128;
Williams v. Triplett, 3 Iowa 518; Games v.
Manning, 2 Greene 251.
£:entMcA;i/.— Mitchell r. Gregory, 1 Bibb
449, 4 Am. Dee. 655.
Maine. — Bates v. Churchill, 32 Me. 31;
Veazy v. Harmony, 7 Me. 91.
Missouri. — McJilton v. Smizer, 18 Mo. 111.
'New Hampshire. — Bailey v. Simonds, 6
N. H. 159, 25 Am. Dec. 454.
New York. — Wheelock v. Tanner, 39 N. Y.
481.
North Carolina. — Patton v. Hunt, 64 N. C.
163.
Texas. — Cherry v. Newby, 11 Tex. 457.
Vermont. — Barney v. Bliss, 1 D. Chipm.
399, 12 Am. Dec. 696.
Custom and usage may be proven to de-
termine whether a proper tender of chattels
has been made, in the absence of definite
provision in the contract. Clark v. Baker,
11 Mete. (Mass.) 186, 45 Am. Dec. 199.
Thus if it is the custom to call at the shop
of a mechanic for articles manufactured by
him, it is a sufficient tender if the article is
ready on the day and set out in his shop.
Downer v. Sinclair, 15 Vt. 495.
A tender of a certificate of inspection for
lumber lying on the bank of a river was held
insufficient, the certificate being evidence
only that the lumber had been inspected, not
that the lumber was at the place at the time
of the tender. Thompson v. Gaylard, 3
N. C. 326.
8. Smith V. Loomis, 7 Conn. 110; Games
V. Manning, 2 Greene (Iowa) 251; Bates v.
Churchill, 32 Me. 31; Veazy v. Harmony, 7
Me. 91; Cherry v. Newby, 11 Tex. 457. But
see Armstrong v. Tait, 8 Ala. 635, 42 Am.
Dec. 656; Hughes c. Prewitt, 5 Tex. 264.
The property may be pointed out or
designated by setting it aside and tagging
[III, G," 3]
it, so that the payee may pursue and re-
cover the property itself. Hughes v. Esch-
back, 7 D. C. 66; Bates v. Bates, Walk.
(Miss.) 401, 12 Am. Dec. 572; McConnel v.
Hall, Brayt. (Vt.) 223.
9. Wyman v. Winslow, 11 Me. 398, 26
Am. Dec. 542; Coffin v. Reynolds, 21 Minn.
456; Barns v. Graham, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 452,
15 Am. Dec. 394; Newton v. Galbraith, 5
Johns. (X. Y.) 119.
Where a note was for the payment of ten
cows and calves, driving eleven cows and
calves into a lot without making any sepa-
ration of the ten was held not a tender, al-
though the debtor stated that he was ready
to pay tlie note. Bates r. Bates, Walk.
(Miss.) 401, 12 Am. Dec. 572.
Where the thing to be paid was hay, it
was held that it need not be weighed and
specially turned out if a, sufficient quantity
was at the place set apart and appropriated
for the payment of the note. Leballister v.
Nash, 24 Me. 316.
10. Barney v. Bliss, 1 D. Chipm. (Vt.)
399, 12 Am. Dec. 696.
11. Isherwood v. Whitmore, 2 Dowl. P. 0.
N. S. 548, 7 Jur. 535, 12 L. J. Exeh. 318, 11
M. & W. 347.
12. Townsend v. Wells, 3 Day (Conn.)
327.
13. Thompson v. Gaylard, 3 N. C. 326.
14. Jones v. Knowles, 30 Me. 402; Elkins
V. Parkhurst, 17 Vt. 105.
15. Alabama. — Odum r. Rutledge, etc.,
E. Co., 94 Ala. 488, 10 So. 222; McCalley
V. Otey, 90 Ala. 302, 8 So. 157.
Arkansas. — Kelly v. Keith, 85 Ark. 30,
106 S. W. 1173; iCole «;. Moore, 34 Ark.
582.
Colorado. — Burlock c. Cross, 16 Colo. 162,
26 Pac. 142.
Florida. — Matthews v. Lindsay, 20 Fla.
Georgia. — Gray v. Angler, 62 Ga. 596.
Illinois. — Rankin c. Rankin, 216 111. 132,
74 N E. 763; Aulger v. Clay, 109 111. 487;
Pulsifer t. Shepard, 36 111. 513; Stow V.
Russell, 36 HI. 18; Webster v. Pierce, 35
TENDER
[38 Cye.J 159
affirmative relief by the tenderer who, either as plaintiff or defendant, invokes
the equitable powers of the court.'" But if a lien is discharged by a tender, the
tenderer desiring the benefit of it may rely upon the tender without showing
that it was kept good," and the same rule applies where a contract or lease has
been terminated by the tender.'' A tender of specific articles, however, unlike
a tender of money, need not be kept good." Sureties are discharged as a general
111. 158; Chicago Mar. Bank v. Eushmore,
28 III. 463; Sloan v. Petrie, 16 111. 262;
Mason v. Stevens, 91 111. App. 623; Mc-
Daniel t\ Upton, 45 111. App. 151; Dunbar
v. De Boer, 44 111. App. 615.
Indiana. — Wilson v. McVey, 83 Ind. lOS.,
Iowa. — Rainwater v. Hummell, 79 Iowa
571, 44 N. W. 814; Long v. Howard, 35
Iowa 148; Jones v. Mullinix, 25 Iowa 198;
Mohn V. Stoner, 14 Iowa 115; Barker v.
Brink, 5 Iowa 481.
Kansas. — Saum v. La Shell, 45 Kan.' 205,
25 Pac. 561.
Kentucky. — McCulloch v. Scott, 13 B.
Mon. 172, 56 Am. Dec. 561 ; Lloyd v. O'Eear,
59 S. W. 483, 22 Ky. L. Eep. 1000.
Maine. — McPheters v. Kimball, 99 Me.
505, 59 Atl. 853.
Maryland. — Maulsby v. Page, 105 Md. 24,
65 Atl. 818.
Michigan.' — Browning v. Grouse, 40 Mich.
339.
Minnesota. — Balme v. Wambaugh, 16
Minn. 116.
Mississippi. — Tishimingo Sav. Inst. v.
Buchanan, 60 Miss. 496.
New York. — Nelson v. Loder, 132 N. Y. '
288, 30 N. E. 369 [affirming 55 Hun 173, 7
N. y. Suppl. 849]; Tuthill v. Morris, 81
N. Y. 94; Dodge v. Fearey, 19 Hun 277;
Warbury v. Wilcox, 2 Hilt. 121; Craig «.
Eobinson, 33 Misc. 779, 67 N. Y. Suppl. 969;
Osterman v. Goldstein, 32 -Misc. 676, 66
N. Y. Suppl. 506 [reversing 31 Misc. 501,
64 N. Y. Suppl. 555] ; Starke v. Myers, 24
Misc. 577, 53 N. Y. Suppl. 650; Rumpf v.
Schiff, 109 N. Y. ISuppl. 51.
North Carolina. — Tate v. Smith, 70 N. C.
685.
Oregon. — ^Anderson v. Griffith, 51 Oreg.
116, 93 Pac. 934.
Pennsylvania. — Sharpless v. Dobbins, 1
Del. Co. 25.
Virginia. — Lohman v. Crouch, 19 Gratt.
331; Shumaker v. Nichols, 6 Gratt. 592;
Call V. Scott, 4 Call 402.
Washington. — Andrews v. Uncle Joe Dia-
mond Broker, 44 Wash. 668, 87 Pac. 947.
West yirjfimo.— Shank v. GrofF, 45 W. Va.
543, 32 S. E. 248.
Wisconsin. — Musgat v. Pumpelly, 46 Wis.
660, 1 N. W. 410.
United States. — Bissell v. Heyward, 96
U. S. 580, 24 L. ed. 678; Beardsley v. Beards-
ley, 86 Fed. 16, 29 C. C. A. 538; Illinois v.
Illinois Cent. E. Co., 33 Fed. 730; Coghlan
V. South Carolina E. Co., 32 Fed. 316.
EnglaMd.— Gjlea v. Hall, 2 P. Wms. 378,
24 Bng. Reprint 774.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tender," § 55.
But see Ashley v. Eocky Mountain Tel.
Co., 25 Mont. 286, 64 Pac. 765.
A tender may be abandoned by subse-
quently failing to insist upon it. Fry v.
Russell, 35 Mich. 229; Davis v. Nelson, 73
Vt. 328, 50 Atl. 1094; Barker v. Parken-
horn, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 993, 2 Wash. 142.
Where a composition agreement is set up
as a defense to a common-law action on the
original obligation, and tender thereunder
is shown, the tender need not be kept good,
where refused. Eosenzweig v. Kalichman,
56 Misc. (N. Y.) 345, 106 N. Y. Suppl.
860.
16. Arkansas. — Schearfif v. Dodge, 33 Ark.
340.
Georgia. — McGehee v. Jones, 10 Ga. 127.
Illinois. — O'Eiley v. Suver, 70 111. 85;
Blain v. Foster, 33 111. App. 297.
Iowa. — Long V. Howard, 35 Iowa 148.
Minnesota. — Murray v. Nickerson, 90 Minn.
197, 95 N. W. 898; Dunn v. Hunt, 63 Minn.
484, 65 N. W. 948.
Missouri. — Euppel v. Missouri Guarantee,
etc., Assoc, 158 Mo. 613, 59 S. W. lOOO.
New York. — Nelson v. Loder, 132 N. Y.
288, 30 N. E. 369 ; Werner v. Tuch, 127 N. Y.
217, 27 N. E. 845, 24 Am. St. Eep. 443.
Pennsylvania. — Summerson v. Hicks, 134
Pa. St. 566, 19 Atl. 808.
Vermont. — Perry v. Ward, 20 Vt. 92.
Wisconsin. — Smith v. Phillips, 47 Wis. 202,
2 N. W. 285.
United States. — Illinois v. Illinois Cent.
R. Co., 33 Fed. 730.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 55.
But see Cannon v. Handley, 72 Cal. 133, 13
Pac. 315.
17. Illinois. — McPherson v. James, 69 111.
App. 337.
Michigan. — Stewart -r. Brown, 48 Mich.
383, 12 N. W. 499; Daugherty v. Byles, 41
Mich. 61; Potts V. Plaisted, 30 Mich. 149;
Eslow V. Mitchell, 26 Mich. 500; Moynahan
V. Moore, 9 Mich. 9, 77 Am. Dec. 468.
Minnesota. — Norton v. Baxter, 41 Minn.
146, 42 N. W. 865, 16 Am. St. Eep. 679, 4
L. E. A. 306.
New York. — Kortright v. Cady, 21 N. Y.
343, 78 Am. Deo. 145.
Oregon. — Christenson v. Nelson, 38 Oreg.
473, 63 Pac. 648.
Washington. — Thomas v. Seattle Brewing,
etc., Co., 48 Wash. 560, 94 Pac. 116, 125 Am.
St. Rep. 945, 15 L. E. A. N. S. 1164; Andrews
V. Hoeslich, 47 Wash. 220, 91 Pac. 772, 125
Am. St. Eep. 896, 18 L. E. A. N. S. 1265.
18. Parker *. Gortatowsky, 129 Ga. 623',
69 S. E. 286.
19. Garrard v. Zachariah, 1 Stew. (Ala.)
272; Mitchell v. Merrill, 2 Blackf. (Ind.)
87, 18 Am. Dec. 12S; Mitchell v. Gregory, 1
Bibb (Ky.) 449, 4 Am. Dec. 655; McPherson
i: Wiswell, 16 Nebr. 625, 21 N. W. 391.
[IV. A]
160 [38 Cye.J
TENDER
rule by a valid rejected tender made to the creditor, although it is not kept
good.^"
B. Manner — l. In general. To keep a tender good, the party making
it must keep the money so that he can produce it when demanded, ^^ and a tender
of money must be kept good in money .^^ The identical money tendered need not
be kept, it being sufficient if similar current funds are kept on hand in readiness,^'
and before an action is commenced or a defense interposed based on a tender, the
tender may be kept good by the tenderer keeping the money in his possession."
But the tenderer must not use the money, and if by so doing his readiness to pay at
all times is impaired, using the money amotmts to a withdrawal of the tender,^^
and some cases seem to go even further and to hold that subsequent use of the
funds tendered vitiates the tender irrespective of the question of the impairment
But the tenderer cannot a1)andon the prop-
erty (Gayle v. Suydam, 24 Wend. (N. Y.)
271) ; he is bound to care for it, and may
retain possession for the tenderee or store
the goods for him (Dustan i. McAndrew, 44
N. Y. 72; Slieldon v. Skinner, 4 Wend. (N. Y.)
525, 21 Am. Dec. 161).
The tenderee must resort to the specific
articles tendered, and the person in whose
possession they are holds them as bailee and
at the tenderee's risk. Fordyce v. Hathorn,
57 Mo. 120; Slingerland v. Morse, 8 Johns.
(N. Y.) 474.
If the thing tendered be a note, bond, mort-
gage, deed, or other instrument, defendant
must plead that he has always been and still
is ready witli the money or thing tendered,
and it must be in court on the trial. Fannin
V. Thomason, 50 Ga. 614; Sanders v. Peck,
131 111. 407, 25 N. E. 508; Gayle v. Suydam,
24 Wend. (N. Y.) 271; Brooklyn Bank v.
De Grauw, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 342, 35 Am.
Dec. 569; Racine County Bank v. Keep, 13
Wis. 209.
20. See Principal and Sueety, 32 Cyc.
573.
21. AXabama,. — McCalley t. Otey, 90 Ala.
302, 8 So. 157.
Florida. — Matthews v. Lindsay, 20 Fla.
962.
Georgia. — Gray v. Angier, 62 Ga. 596.
Illinois. — Aulger v. Clay, 109 111. 487.
Minnesota. — Dunn v. Hunt, 63 Minn. 484,
65 N. W. 948.
Missouri. — Voss v. McGuire, 26 Mo. App.
452.
New Jersey. — Stockton v. Dundee Mfg.
Co., 22 N. J. Eq. 56.
New York. — Dodge v. Fearey, 19 Hun
277.
Virginia. — Call v. Scott, 4 Call 402.
Vnited States. — Coghlan v. South Caro-
lina R. Co., 32 Fed. 316.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tender," § 57.
It must be a continuing readiness; a mere
willingness is not sufficient. Shugart v. Pat-
tee, 37 Iowa 422; Dunn v. Hunt, 63 Minn.
484, 65 N. W. 948.
Where a tender of a check was refused,
and pending a suit the bank failed, it was
held that the tender was not kept good, even
though the check was certified and it had
been kept for the tenderee. Larsen v. Breene,
12 Colo. 480, 21 Pac. 498.
[IV, A]
Where more was tendered than was actu-
ally due, only the amount actually due need
be k?pt good (Abel v. Opel, 24 Ind. 250. See
also Tucker v. Buffum, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 46),
and a decree need not be for more than the
actual amount due, although the tender was
of a greater sum, where the plea is an offer
to pay the amount found due. (Glos v. Good-
rich, 175 111. 20, 51 N. E. 643.
22. Aulger t. Clay, 109 111. 487; Browning
V. Crouse, 40 Mich. 339.
23. McCalley v. Otey, 90 Ala. 302, 8 So.
157; Dunn v. Hunt, 63 Minn. 484, 65 N. W.
948; Colby v. Stevens, 38 N. H. 191; Thomp-
son V. Lyon, 40 W. Va. 87, 20 S. E. 812. But
see Sanders f. Bryer, 152 Mass. 141, .25 N. E.
86, 9 L. R. A. 255 ; Roosevelt v. Bull's Head
Bank, 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 579.
24. Loughridge v. Iowa Life, etc., Assoc,
84 Iowa 141, 50 N. W. 568 ; Rice v. Kahn, 70
Wis. 323, 3'5 N. W. 465.
25. Alabama. — Frank v. Pickens, 69 Ala. 369.
Arkansas. — See Woodruff v. Trapnall, 12
Ark. 640.
Georgia. — Gray v. Angier, 62 Ga. 596;
Steed V. Loveless, 52 Ga. 323; Fannin v.
Thomason, 50 Ga. 614.
Illinois. — Healy v. Protection Mut. F. Ins.
Co., 213 111. 99, 72 N. E. 678; Aulger v. Clay,
109 III. 487; Thayer v. Meeker, 86 111. 470;
Stow i\ Russell, 36 111. 18.
Kentucky. — Nantz v. Lober, 1 Duv. 304.
Maine. — Rowell v. Jewett, 73 Me. 365.
Maryland. — Columbian Bldg. Assoc, v.
Crump, 42 Md. 192.
Massachusetts. — Sanders r. Bryer, 152
Mass. 141, 25 N. E. 86, 9 L. R. A. 255.
Missouri. — Voss v. McGuire, 26 Mo. App.
452.
New Hampshire. — Bailey v. Metcalf, 6'
N. H. 156.
New Jersey. — See Shields v. Lozear, 22
N. J. Eq. 447.
New York. — Werner v. Tuch, 127 N. Y.
217, 27 N. E. 845, 24 Am. St. Rep. 443; Hills
V. Place, 48 N. Y. 520, 8 Am. Rep. 568; Nel-
son V. Loder, 55 Hun 173, 7 N. Y. Suppl. 849
[affirmed in 132 N. Y. 288, 30 N. E. 369];
Burr V. Stanley, 4 Edw. 27.
Pennsylvania. — Miller v. New Orleans
Bank, 5 Whart. 503, 34 Am. Dec. 571; Mc-
Connell v. Nolan, 4 Wkly. Notes Cas. 509.
Vermont. — See Curtiss v. Greenbanka, 24
Vt. 536.
TENDER
[38 Cye.] 161
of the debtor's ability to pay.-° A tender is abandoned by requesting a return,
and receiving back the money tendered/' or departing with the property,^* or
destroying it.^"
2. Depositing Money. It is not necessary that a person who makes a tender
should keep the money on his person ready to be paid the instant it is demanded.^"
He may deposit it in a bank or other place for safe-keeping,^' in some states express
statutory authority to do so being found.^^ But the deposit if in bank must be
special,'' and such deposit does not place the money at the risk of the tenderee.'*
C. Effect of Subsequent Demand and Refusal to Pay. A tender is
not kept good if the tenderer after making it refuses to comply with a subsequent
request by the tenderee for the thing tendered, and the prior tender becomes
of no avail.'^ The rules in relation to a subsequent demand as avoiding a prior
United States. — Bissell v. Heyward, 96
U. S. 580, 24 L. ed. 678; Cheney v. Bilby, 74
Fed. 52, 20 C. C. A. 291.
England.— Gylea t. Hall, 2 P. Wms. 378,
24 Eng. Reprint 774.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tender," § 57.
Money tendered in payment of one bond,
when refused, cannot be used in making a
tender upon a second bond, a third, etc.
Quynn v. Whetcroft, 3 Harr. & M. (Md.)
352.
Where money is borrowed for the purpose
of making a tender, and on its being refused,
it is returned to the lender, the tender is not
kept good. Park v. Wiley, 67 Ala. 310 ; Mid-
dle States Loan, etc., Co. i". Hagerstown Mat-
tress Upholstery Co., 82 Md. 506, 33 Atl.
886; Dunn t,-. Hunt, 63 Minn. 484, 65 N. W.
948.
Where a bank, after making a tender, min-
gled the money with its other funds and
used it in its ordinary business, it was held
that the tender was not kept good. Roosevelt
V. Bull's Head Bank, 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 579.
26. Sanders v. Bryer, 152 Mass. 141, 25
N. E. 86, 9 L. R. A. 255; Hills i;. Place, 48
N. Y. 620, 8 Am. Rep. 568; Roosevelt v.
Bull's Head Bank, 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 579;
Murphy v. Gold, etc., Tel. Co., 3 N. Y. SUppl.
804; Bissell v. Heyward, 96 U. S. 580, 24
L. ed. 678.
27. Illinois v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 33 Fed.
"^30.
38. Currie v. White, 7 Rob. (N. Y.) 637.
29. Gayle t: Suydam, 24 Wend. (N. Y.)
271; Brooklyn Bank v. De Grauw, 23 Wend.
(N. Y.) 342, 35 Am. Dec. 569.
30. See cases cited infra, the following
notes.
31. Dunn v. Hunt, 63 Minn. 484, 65 N. W.
948; Ritchie v. Ege, 58 Minn. 291, 59 N. W.
1020.
32. See the statutes of the several states.
And see Thompson v. San Francisco Super.
Ct., 119 Cal. 538, 51 Pac. 863; Kerr v. Moore,
6 Cal. App. 305, 92 Pac. 107; Righetti v.
Righetti, 5 Cal. App. 249, 90 Pac. 50; Rid-
path V. Evening Express Co., 4 Cal. App. 361,
88 Pac. 287; Young v. Daniels, 2 Iowa 126,
63 Am. Dec. 477; Walker v. Brown, 12 La.
Ann. 266; Stakke v. Chapman, 13 S. D. 269,
83 N. W. 261.
A personal tender may nevertheless be
made (Sayward v. Houghton, 119 Cal. 545,
61 Pac. 853', 52 Pac. 44), and kept good
[11]
(see Wolff !■. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 123 Cal.
535, 56 Pac. 453), according to the rules of
common law.
33. Boyce v. Pritchett, 6 Dana (Ky.) 231;
Nelson v. Loder, 55 Hun (N. Y.) 173, 7
N. Y. Suppl. 849 [affirmed in 132 N. Y. 288,
30 N. E. 369]. And see Crain v. McGoon,
86 111. 431, 29 Am. Rep. 37. Compare Riley
V. Cheesman, 75 Hun (N. Y.) 387, 27 N. Y.
Suppl. 453.
A payer of a note payable at a bank, who
calls at the bank on the due day ready to
pay it, but does not find the instrument
there, may make a special deposit of the
money there, to meet the note when pre-
sented. See Wallace v. McConnell, 13 Pet
(U. S.) 136, 10 L. ed. 95.
34. Benton v. Roberts, 2 La. Ann. 243
Dent V. Dunn, 3 Campb. 296, 13 Rev. Rep,
809.
The money is subject to attachment by gar
nishee or trustee process. Stowell v. Reed,
16 N. H. 20, 41 Am. Dec. 714.
35. Alaiama. — Frank v. Pickens, 69 Ala.
369.
Connecticut. — Rose v. Brown, Kirby 293,
1 Am. Dec. 22.
Illinois. — Carr v. Miner, 92 111. 604 ; Sloan
V. Petrie, 16 111. 262.
loica. — Rainwater V: Hummell, 79 Iowa
571, 44 N. W. 814; Hambel v. Tower, 14 Iowa
530.
Kentucky. — Nantz v. Lober, 1 Duv. 304.
Maine. — Lyon v. Williamson, 27 Me.' 149.
Maryland. — Columbian Bldg. Assoc, v.
Crump, 42 Md. 192.
Massachusetts. — Town v. Trow, 24 Pick.
168.
Michigan. — Fry v. Russell, 35 Mich. 229.
Missouri. — Voss v. McGuire, 26 Mo. App.
452; Cupples v. Galligan, 6 Mo. App. 62.
New York. — Manning v. Harris, 2 Johns.
24, 3 Am. Dec. 386.
North Carolina. — Tate v. Smith, 70 N". C.
685.
Tennessee. — Walters v. McAllister, 4 Hayw.
299.
United States. — Barker v. Parkenhorn, 2
Fed. Cas. No. 993, 2 Wash. 142.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tender," § 56.
If a tender takes away a right to damages
on account of the non-payment of the debt, a
subsequent demand and refusal may restore
the right. See Manning r. Harris, 2 Johns.
(N. Y.) 24, 3 Am. Dec. 386.
[IV, C]
162 [38 Cyc]
TENDER
tender are, however, very strict; '° and to effoct this result there must be an actual
subsequent demand " by the tenderee or by an agent duly authorized to accept
the tender '^ upon the tenderer or someone duly authorized by him to receive
the teader,^' for the precise sum tendered,*" and legally due.^' The demand
must be at a reasonable time or place, and if either the time or place is unreason-
able the debtor is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to comply."
V. Effect of tender.
A. In General. Ordinarily a tender of money does not operate as a satis-
faction of the debt,^' and is no bar to an action thereon; " the effect, when the
tender is maintained, being to discharge the debtor from a liability for interest
subsequent to the tender,*^ or damages that would accrue by reason of non-per-
formance,^" and costs afterward incurred.^^ A tender of money does not, unless
36. Town f. Trow, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 168.
37. Berthold v. Reyburn, 37 Mo. 586; Ed-
wards V. Yeates, E. & M. 360, 21 E. C. L.
766.
A demand before the tender is of no effect.
Brandon v. Newington, 3 Q. B. 915, 3 G. & D.
194, 7 Jur. 60, 12 L. J. Q. B. 20, 43 E. C. L.
1035.
38. Coles r. Bell, 1 Campb. 478 note, 10
Eev. Eep. 731 note; Core r. Callaway, 1 Esp.
115. See Pimm v. Grevill, 6 Esp. 95.
39. Town X. Trow, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 168;
Berthold i:. Eeyburn, 37 Mo. 586.
If the tender was made in behalf of joint
debtors, a subsequent application to one of
them . for the money is sufficient. Peirse f.
Bowles, 1 Stark 323, 18 Eev. Eep. 775, 2
E. C. L. 127.
40. Spybey v. Hide, 1 Campb. 181.
If a larger sum is demanded the debtor
may disregard it. Mahan c. Waters, 60 Mo.
167 ; Thetford r. Hubbard, 22 Vt. 440 ; Eivers
V. Griffiths, 5 B. & Aid. 630, 1 D. & E. 215,
22 Rev. Eep. 506, 7 E. C. L. 344, 106 Eng.
Eeprint 1321.
If more is tendered than is due, the debtor
need only demand the sum due. Dean r.
James, 4 B. & Ad. 547, 2 L. J. K. B. 94, 1
N. & M. 303, 24 E. C. L. 241, 110 Eng. Ee-
print 561.
Where the tender has the effect of stopping
the interest, the demand must be for the
principal alone. Mahan v. Waters, 60 Mo.
167.
41. Coore x,. Callaway, 1 Esp. 115.
42. Strafford v. Welch, 59 N. H. 46 ; Sharp
«/-. Todd, 38 N. J. Eq. 324; Gibbs %. Stead, 8
B. & C. 528, 6 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 378, 15
E. C. L. 261, 108 Eng. Reprint 1138. See
Town f. Trow, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 168.
A demand after sunset has been held an
unreasonable hour. Tucker v. Buffum, 16
Pick. (Mass.) 46.
43. California.— Colton t'. Oakland Sav.
Bank, 137 Cal. 376, 70 Pac. 225.
Connecticut. — Saunders v. Denison, 20
Conn. 521.
Illinois. — Independent Credit Co. v. South
Chicago City E. Co., 121 111. App. 595.
Iowa. — Sheriff r. Hull, 37 Iowa 174;
Guengerich v. Smith, 36 Iowa 587; I-ong !;.
Howard, 35 Iowa 148; Johnson r. Triggs, 4
Greene 97.
[IV, C]
Massachusetts. — Town v. Trow, 24 Pick.
168.
Michigan. — Cowles v. Marble, 37 Mich.
158.
Mississippi. — Memphis Mach. Works v.
Aberdeen, 77 Miss. 420, 27 So. 608.
Missouri. — Euppel r. Missouri Guarantee
Sav., etc., Assoc, 158 Mo. 613, 59 S. W.
1000; McGuire v. Brockman, 58 Mo. App.
307 ; Eaymond v. McKinney, 58 Mo. App. 303.
New Hampshire. — Howard v. Hunt, 57
N. H. 467; Haynes v. Thom, 28 N. H. 386;
Willard v. Harvey, 5 N. H. 252. See Rey-
nolds V. Libbey, Smith 197.
New ror/c— Kelly v. West, 36 N. Y.
Super. Ct. 304; Hill v. Place, 7 Eob. 389, 5
Abb. Pr. N. S. 18; Jackson r. Crafts, 18
Johns. 110; Eaymond v. Bearnard, 12 Johns.
274, 7 Am. Dec. 317.
North Carolina. — Charlotte Bank v. David-
son, 70 N. C. 118.
Oregon. — Bartel r. Lope, 6 Oreg. 321.
Pennsylvania. — Cornell v. Green, 10 Serg.
& R. 14; Johnson v. Hocker, 1 Dall. 406, 1
L. ed. 197.
South Carolina. — Smith v. Stinson, 1 Brev.
1. .
Tennessee. — Chaffin v. Crutcher, 2 Sneed
360.
Texas. — Hoskins v. Dougherty, 29 Tex. Civ.
App. 318, 69 S. W. 103.
Vnited States. — Mitchell v. Roberts, 17
Fed. 776, 5 McCrary 425.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tender," § 61.
44. McJilton r. Smizer, 18 Mo. Ill;
Haynes v. Thom, 28 N. H. 386 ; Kelly v. West,
36 N. Y. Super. Ct. 304; People i: Stern-
burg, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 635; Manny v. Harris,
2 Johns. (N. Y.) 24, 3 Am. Dec. 386.
But where a tender may be made upon an
accord, a tender according to the terms agreed
will bar an action on the original demand.
Whitsett r. Clayton, 5 Colo. 476.
45. See Inteeest, 22 Cyc. 155.
46. Town V. Trow, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 168;
Curtiss v. Greenbanks, 24 Vt. 536; Wallace
V. McConnell, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 136, 10 L. ed. 95.
47. See Costs, 11 Cyc. 71.
The effect of a tender for damages result-
ing from a tort, allowed under the statutes
in some of the states, is restricted solely to
the right to costs. See Spaulding r. Warner,
57 Vt. 654; Adams v. Morgan, 39 Vt. 302;
TENDER
[38 Cye.] 163
accepted, vest any title thereto in the party to whom the tender is made/*
nor is an unaccepted tender such a part performance as will take a contract out
of the statute of frauds."
B. On Collateral Benefits, Securities, and Liens. Although a creditor
by refusing to accept does not forfeit his right to the thing tendered, he does lose
ail collateral benefits or securities.^" Thus a valid legal tender of the amount of
a lien debt, such as a mortgage lien on real estate,^' chattels,^^ a tax lien,^^ a
mechanic's lien," or the lien of a pledge ^^ discharges the lien and leaves the creditor
to his personal claim against the debtor,^' although the rule seems to be otherwise
as to the lien of a judgment.^' A tender in full performance of the secured con-
tract discharges a surety.^'
C. As Admission of Liability. A tender is ordinarily an admission of an
amount due equal to the sum tendered,^" even though the tender is insufficient in
Smith V. Wilbur, 35 Vt. 133. Compare Miller
V. Gable, 30 111. App. 578.
48. Thompson v. Kellogg, 23 Mo. 281;
Stowell f. Read, 16 N. H. 20, 41 Am. Dec. 714.
But see McLeod v. Powe, 12 Ala. 9.
49. Ormsby i: Graham, 23 Iowa 202, 98
N. W. 724; Wisconsin, etc., R. Co. v. Mc-
Kenna, 139 Mich. 43, 102 N. W. 281; Her-
shey Lumber Co. f. St. Paul Sash, Door, etc.,
Co., 66 Minn. 449, 69 N. W. 215; Edgerton v.
Hodge, 41 Vt. 676.
50. Hill V. Carter, 101 Mich. 158, 59 N. W.
413; Caruthers v. Humphrey, 12 Mich. 270;
Frost V. Yonkers Sav. Bank, 70 N. Y. 553,
26 Am. Rep. 627; Tiffany v. St. John, 65
N. Y. 314, 22 Am. Rep. 612; Kortright v.
Cady, 21 N. Y. 343, 78 Am. Dec. 145.
51. See Mortgages, 27 Cyc. 1408.
52. See Chattel Moetgages, 7 Cyc. 69.
53. See Taxation, 37 Cyc. 1159.
54. Moynahan v. Moore, 9 Mich. 9, 77 Am.
Dee. 468; Schwab i\ Loubat, 1 Month. L. Bui.
(N. Y. ) 45, under the Mechanic's Lien Law
of 1875, c. 379, § 18.
Deposit in court as discharging mechanic's
lien see Mechanics' Liens, 27 Cyc. 284.
55. See Pledges, 31 Cyc. 852.
56. Arkansas. — 'Schearff v. Dodge, 33 Ark.
340.
Michigan. — Gordon f. Constantine Hy-
draulic Co., 117 Mich. 620, 76 N. W. 142.
New York. — Post v. Arnot, 2 Den. 344;
Merritt v. Lambert, 7 Paige 344.
South Carolina. — Salinas v. Ellis, 26 S. C.
337, 2 S. E. 121.
Wisconsin. — Moore v. Cord, 14 Wis. 231.
United States. — Mitchell v. Roberts, 17
Fed. 776, 5 McCrary 425.
57. See Judgments, 23 Cyc. 1466.
58. See Peincipal and Sttrett, 32 Cyc.
172.
59. Alabama. — Birmingham, etc., R. Co. v.
Maddox, 155 Ala. 292, 46 So. 780; Birming-
ham Paint, etc., Co. v. Crampton, (1905) 39
So. 1020.
Colorado. — Supply Ditch Co. v. Elliott, 10
Colo. 327, 15 Pac. 691, 3 Am. St. Rep. 586;
Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Harp, 6 Colo. 420.
Delaware. — Ellison v. Simmons, 6 Pennew.
200, 65 Atl. 591.
Illinois. — Monroe v. Ghaldeck, 78 111.
429; Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Seals, 137
111. App. 430; Mason v. Uedelhofen, 102 111.
App. 116 iafp-rmed in 201 111. 465, 66 N. E.
364]; La Salle County f. Hatheway, 73 111.
App. 95 ; Illinois Ins. Co. v. Manchester F.
Assur. Co., 77 111. App. 673 ; Chicago, etc., R.
Co. i;. Hogan, 56 111. App. 577 ; James T. Hair
Co. V. Hichcox, 45 111. App. 504; McDaniel v.
Upton, 45 111. App. 151; Beach v. Jeffery, 1
111. App. 283.
Iowa. — Ahrens v. Fenton, 138 Iowa 559,
115 N. W. 233; Metropolitan Nat. Bank v.
Commercial St. Bank, 104 Iowa 682, 74 N. W.
26; Rainwater v. Hummell, 79 Iowa 571,
44 N. W. 814; Wilson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.,
68 Iowa 673, 27 N. W. 916; Martin v. Whis-
ler, 62 Iowa 416, 17 N. W. 593; Wolmerstadt
V. Jacobs, 61 Iowa 372, 16 N. W. 217 ; Rump
V. Schwartz, 56 Iowa 611, 10 N. W. 99;
Shugart ly. Pattee, 37 Iowa 422; Babcock v.
Harris, 37 Iowa 409; Wright v. Howell, 35
Iowa 288; Fisher v. Moore, 19 Iowa 84;
Burton v. Hintrager, 18 Iowa 348; Brayton
V. Delaware County, 16 Iowa 44; Frink v.
Coe, 4 Greene 555, 61 Am. Dec. 141 ; Johnson
V. Triggs, 4 Greene 97. See Turpin v.
Gresham, 106 Iowa 187, 76 N. W. 680.
Kansas. — Latham r. Hartford, 27 Kan.
249.
Kentucky. — Slack v. Price, 1 Bibb 272.
Louisiana. — Davis v. Millaudon, 17 La.
Ann. 97, 87 Am. Dec. 517.
Massachusetts. — Currier v. Jordan, 117
Mass. 260; Bacon v. Charlton, 7 Cush. 581;
Huntington f. American Bank, 6 Pick. 340.
Nebraska. — Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Readin-
ger, 28 Nebr. 587, 44 N. W. 864; Cobbey v.
Knapp, 23 Nebr. 579, 37 N. W. 485; Murray
V. Cunningham, 10 Nebr. 167, 4 N. W. 319, 953.
New Yorfc.— Eaton v. Wells, 82 N. Y. 576;
Roosevelt v. New York, etc., R. Co., 45 Barb.
554; Slack v. Brown, 13 Wend. 390-.
North Carolina. — Brown v. Fink, 48 N. C.
378.
Oregon. — Simpson v. Carson, 11 Oreg. 361,
8 Pac. 325.
Pennsylvania. — Wagenblast v. McKean, 2
Grant 393; Bailey v. Bucher, 6 Watts 74.
Vermont. — Woodward r. Cutter, 33 Vt. 49.
Wisconsin. — Schnur r. Hickcox, 45 Wis.
200.
United States. — Cain v. Garfield, 4 Fed.
Cas. No. 2,293, 1 Lowell 483.
England. — Seaton f. Benedict, 5 Bing. 187,
2 M. & P. 301, 6 L. J. C. P. 0. S. 208, 15
[V.C]
104 [38 Cye.j
TENDER
form/" or is made in a case where a valid legal tender cannot be made; '' and it
dispenses with proof of everj^hing that would otherwise be necessary to enable
plaintiff to recover upon the obligation or cause of action sued upon to the extent
of the sum admitted to be due.°^ But a tender is not an admission of liability
beyond the amount tendered,"' nor does it necessarily admit all the alleged grounds
for recovery. °* Evidence that a tender was made under a mistaken belief
by the tenderer that the sum tendered was due has been held to be admissible
to rebut the inference that a debt was thereby admitted, °^ and it has been held
that if more was tendered than is admitted by the plea to be due, the tender is
not conclusive as to the surplus, °° and that notwithstanding a tender it may be
shown that the debt was paid before tender made."' A distinction is made
between a tender in a suit and a tender which has been made before trial but not
relied upon in the pleadings of the party who made it, nor the money brought
into court, the former being held an admission of liability and conclusive, while
the latter, although held to be an admission of liability, is not conclusive."*
D. With Regard to Refusal or Acceptance. The unconditional accept-
E. C. L. 534; Willis i. Langiidge, 2 Harr. &
W. 250; Johnson t. Clay, 1 Moore C. P.
200, 7 Taunt. 486, 2 E. C. L. 459; Cox f.
Brain, 3 Taunt. 95.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tender," § 60.
As dispensing with written promise to pay
debts of another. — A plea of tender admits
defendant's liability on the contract or cause
of action to whicli the plea relates, so that
a promise to pay the debt of another need
not be proved to be in writing. Middleton v.
Brewer, Peake N. P. 15, 3 Rev. Rep. 643.
A tender authorized hy statute has the
same force and effect when pleaded as a
tender at common law. Miller f. Gable, 30
111. App. 578; Beach v. Jeffery, 1 111. App.
283; Bacon v. Charlton, 7 Gush. (Mass.) 581.
A plea of tender will not cure a defect in a
complaint failing to allege demand (Letcher
t. Taylor, Hard. (Ky.) 79), and a tender
and plea to have the effect of an admission
must accord strictly with the cause of action
set forth in the complaint (Southern Mut.
Ins. Co. V. Pike, 34 La. Ann. 825 ) .
Effect on right to interpose counter-claim.
— A plea of tender does not preclude defend-
ant from establishing a counter-claim. Ahrens
V. Fenton, 138 Iowa 559, 115 N. W. 233;
La Rault v. Palmer, 51 Wash. 664, 99 Pac.
1036, 21 L. R. A. N. S. 354; Young v. Bor-
zone, 26 Wash. 4, 66 Pac. 135, 421.
60. Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Harp, 6 Colo.
420; Ahrens f. Fenton, 138 Iowa 559, 115
N. W. 233; Eaton f. Wells, 82 N. Y. 576;
Roosevelt v. New Y'ork, etc., R. Co., 45 Barb.
(N. Y.) 554, 30 How. Pr. 226.
61. Cilley t. Hawkins, 48 111. 308; Taylor
V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 76 Iowa 753, 40 N. W.
84; Frink v. Coe, 4 Greene (Iowa) 555, 61
Am. Dec. 141; Roosevelt f. New York, etc.,
R. Co., 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 554, 30 How. Pr.
226.
Such a tender will not save costs. Denver,
etc., R.Co. f. Harp, 6 Colo. 420. See Breen
V. Texas, etc., R. Co., 50 Tex. 43.
62. Price v. Jester, 137 111. App. 565 ; Mil-
ler r. Gable, 30 111. App. 578; Metropolitan
Nat. Bank v. Commercial State Bank, 104
Iowa 682, 74 N. W. 26 ; Noble v. Fagnant, 162
[v.c]
Mass. 275, 38 N. E. 507 ; Bacon K. Charlton, 7
Cush. , (Mass.) 581; Willis r. Langridge, 2
Harr. & 'W. 250. Compare Spence i". Owen
County, 117 Ind. 573, 18 N. E. 513, where
no evidence was given to the jury of the
amount which was alleged to have been
tendered by defendant, and it was held that
plaintiff could not complain on account of the
verdict being for a less sum.
It precludes defendant from introducing
evidence of contributory negligence on the
part of plaintiff, either as to the merits of
the action or in mitigation of damages.
Bacon v. Charlton, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 581.
Judgment unnecessary. — A plaintiff is en-
titled to the amount admitted to be due by
the plea and brought into court, without a
judgment, but he may take a judgment where
a judgment is essential to his right. Wol-
merstadt v. Jacobs, 61 Iowa 372, 16 N. W.
217.
63. Hinds v. Cottle, 143 Mass. 310, 9 K. E.
654; Howlett v. Holland, 6 Gray (Mass.)
418.
64. Griffin r. Harriman, 74 Iowa 436, 38
N. W. 139.
65. Ashuelot R. Co. v. Cheshire R. Co., 60
N. H. 356.
66. Abel V. Opel, 24 Ind. 250.
67. Hill v. Carter, 101 Mich. 158, 59 N. W.
413.
68. Mackey v. Kerwin, 222 111. 371, 78
N. E. 817 [_quoting with approval Hunt
Tender, § 400, where it is said as to tender
before trial not relied upon in the plead-
ings, that " such tender is an admission of
liability, but it is not conclusive. Its weight
is to be considered by the court or jury over
against a subsequent denial of all liability or
an assertion of a liability for a less sum than
tendered. The defendant is not precluded
from stating the reasons or object in making
the tender ; that it was his desire to close the
transaction and avoid litigation, or that, at
the time, he thought the tender was necessary
to save certain rights, or that it was made
under the mistaken belief that the sum was
due "] ; Ashuelot R. Co. v. Cheshire R. Co.,
60 N. H. 356.
TENDER
[38 Cye.J 1G5
ance of a tender ordinarily constitutes payment and discharges the debtor.""
But to have this effect there must be an express acceptance,'" or such conduct
on the part of the tenderee as would in law be construed as an acceptance, as
where a tenderee with whom money has been left against his will refuses to
surrender it." Moreover, the acceptance of a smaller sum than is legally due
does not necessarily satisfy the whole debt, and may be considered a payment
fro tanto; " but, if the claim be unliquidated, or is one about which there is a
bona fide dispute as to the amount due, and a tender is made of a sum upon an
express or implied condition that if received it must be in fxill satisfaction and it
is accepted, it is taken subject to the conditions attached," and the creditor
cannot, against the consent of the debtor, prescribe the terms of acceptance,'*
and no protest, so long as the condition is insisted upon, can vary the result.'^
An acceptance of a tender is a waiver of the objection that it comes too late,'"
or to an objection to the place of tender or to the quality of the money tendered; "
and acceptance after a forfeiture is a waiver of the forfeiture and of the effects
thereof.'*
E. Tender of Specific Articles." A tender of specific articles upon an
obligation payable in specific articles vests title to the property tendered in the
tenderee and discharges the tenderer from liability on the obligation.'" The
69. Thompson v. Kellogg, 23 Mo. 281. And
Bee cases cited infra, the following notes.
70. Thompson v. Kellogg, 23 Mo. 281.
Merely intimating a willingness to receive
money is not enough without actual recep-
tion. Thompson v. Kellogg, 23 Mo. 281.
71. Rogers v. Eutter, 11 Gray (Mass.)
410.
72. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Kamman, 19
111. App. 640; Myers !;. Byington, 34 Iowa
205 ; Duluth Chamber of Commerce v. Knowl-
ton, 42 Minn. 229, 44 N. W. 2; Patnote v.
Sanders, 41 Vt. 66, 98 Am. Dec. 564; Car-
penter V. Welch, 40 Vt. 251.
73. Illinois. — ■ Jenks v. Burr, 56 111. 450.
Iowa. — Cotter v. O'Connell, 48 Iowa 552.
Kansas. — Latham v. Hartford, 27 Kan.
249.
Massachusetts. — Donohue v. Woodbury, 6
Cush. 148, 52 Am. Dec. 777.
Missouri. — .Lee v. Dodd, 20 Mo. App. 271.
Wew Torfc.— Fuller v. Kemp, 138 N. Y.
231, 33 N. E. 1034, 20 L. R. A. 785.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tender," § 65.
74. Perin v. Cathcart, 115 Iowa 553, 89
N. W. 12; Adams i'. Helm, 55 Mo. 468; St.
Joseph School Bd. t\ Hull, 72 Mo. App. 403 ;
Hoyt V. Sprague, 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 497; Mc-
Daniels i: Lapham, 21 Vt. 222.
Receiving a sum offered on conditions,
without words of dissent, is an assent de
facto and binds the party. Donohue v. Wood-
bury, 6 Cush; (Mass.) liS, 52 Am. Dec. 777;
McDaniels v. Rutland Bank, 29 Vt. 230, 70
Am. Dec. 406; McDaniels v. Lapham, 21 Vt.
222.
75. Hanson v. Todd, 95 Ala. 328, 10 So.
354; Eosema v. Porter, 112 Mich. 13, 70
N. W. 316; Preston v. Grant, 34 Vt. 201.
If the condition is waived by the debtor the
rule is otherwise. Gassett v. Andover, 21 Vt.
342. See Perin v. Cathcart, 115 Iowa 553, 89
N. W. 12.
76. Emery v. Langley, 1 Ida. 694 ; Stow v.
Eussell, 36 111. 18; Adams v. Helm, 55 Mo.
468.
77. Bickle v. Beseke, 23 Ind. 18. See Lam-
pasas Hotel, etc., Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 17
Tex. Civ. App. 615, 43 S. W. 1081, where a
draft was sent and retained.
78. Leighton v. Shapley, 8 N. H. 359 ; West
V. Crary, 47 N. Y. 423; Patchin v. Pierce, 12
Wend. (N. Y.) 61.
79. Effect of specific tender in contracts of
sale see Saijes, 35 Cyc. 169.
80." California. — • Lamott v. Butler, 18 Cal.
32, holding, however, that fraud takes the
case out of the operation of the rule.
Connecticut. — Saunders v. Denison, 20
Conn. 521.
District of Columhia. — Hughes v. Esch-
bach, 7 D. C. 66.
Georgia. — Fannin v. Thomason, 50 Ga.
614.
Indiana. — West v. Chase, 3 Ind. 301;
Mitchell i: Merrill, 2 Blackf. 87, 18 Am. Dec.
128. See also Schrader t\ WoMn, 21 Ind.
238.
Iowa. — Hambel V: Tower, 14 Iowa 530;
Spafford v. Stutsman, 9 Iowa 128; Williams
V. Triplett, 3 Iowa 518; Games t\ Manning,
2 Greene 251.
Kentucky. — Mitchell v. Gregory, 1 Bibb
449, 4 Am. Dec. 655.
Maine. — Leballister v. Nash, 24 Me. 316;
Wyman v. Winslow, 11 Me. 398, 26 Am. Dec.
542; Yeazy v. Harmony, 7 Me. 91.
Massachusetts. — Bobbins v. Luce, 4 Mass.
474.
Mississippi. — Bates v. Bates, Walk. 401,
12 Am. Dec. 572.
Missouri. — ^McJilton r. Smizer, 18 Mo. 111.
Nebraska. — McPherson v. Wiswell, 16
Nebr. 625, 21 N. W. 391.
New Hampshire. — Bailey v. Simonds, 6
N. H. 159, 25 Am. Dec. 454. But see Weld
V. Hadley, 1 N. H. 295.
New York. — Hayden v. Demets, 53 N. Y.
426; Des Arts v. Leggett, 16 N. Y. 582;
Lamb v. Lathrop, 13 Wend. 95, 27 Am. Dec.
174; Barns v. Graham, 4 Cow. 452, 15 Am.
Dec. 394; Singerland v. Morse, 8 Johns. 474.
[V,E]
166 [38 Cyc]
TENDER
tenderer, if the tender is refused, becomes the bailee of the tenderee,"' who, if
the goods are withheld, may maintain replevin or trover therefor as he may elect; ^
and although, after tender and the consequent arising of the bailment relation,
the tenderer in breach of his duty as bailee allows the articles to be lost or
destroyed, this will not affect the result that the debt is paid by the tenderer,"
although the rule seems to be otherwise where the tenderer after the tender is
refused treats the property as his own and sells it.**
VI. PLEADING, Paying money into Court, and procedure Thereupon.
A. Pleading Tender — i. Necessity. A litigant relying upon a tender
before suit must plead it,^ and it cannot at common law be proved under a general
issue or denial,*" although under statute in some of the states evidence of a tender
may be given under the general issue.*' Where the tender is collateral to the
action, as having operated to extinguish or suspend plaintiff's title to the specific
property sued for, or right to the possession, it need not be pleaded.** A tender
which was not pleaded in an action in a lower court cannot be pleaded in the
appellate court.*'
2. Nature of Plea. A plea of tender is a plea in bar of costs and damages
Pennsylvania. — Case v. Green, 5 Watts
262, 30 Am. Dec. 311.
South Dakota. — • Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v.
Higinbotham, 15 S. X>. 547, 91 N. W. 330.
Texas. — Cherry v. Newby, 11 Tex. 457;
Dewees v. Lockhart, 1 Tex. 535.
Vermont. — Curtiss v. Greenbanks, 24 Vt.
536; Downer t. Sinclair, 15 Vt. 495; Dewey
V. Washburn, 12 Vt. 580; Barney v. Bliss,
1 D. Chipm. 399, 12 Am. Dec. 696.
United States. — ^ Mitchell v. Roberts, 17
Fed. 776, 5 McCrary 425.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 60 et
seq.
A tender of specific articles is analogous
to a consignation under the civil law, where
the debtor is discharged. See Sheldon v.
Skinner, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 525, 21 Am. Dec.
161.
81. Eix V. Strong, 1 Root (Conn.) 55;
Lamb v. Lathrop, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 95, 27
Am. Dec. 174; Slingerland v. Morse, 8 Johns.
(N. Y.) 474; Curtiss v. Greenbanks, 24 Vt.
536.
82. Rix V. Strong, 1 Root (Conn.) 55;
Hughes V. Eschback, 7 D. C. 66; Mitchell v.
Gregory, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 449, 4 Am. Dec. 655;
Bates V. Bates, Walk. (Miss.) 401, 12 Am.
Dec. 572.
83. Gilman v. Moore, 14 Vt. 457.
84. Mayfield v. Cotton, 21 Tex. 1.
85. Alabama. — Park v. Wiley, 67 Ala.
310.
California. — Meredith v. Santa Clara Min.
Assoc, 56 Cal. 178; Hegler v. Eddy, 53 Cal.
597.
District of Columbia. — Hughes v. Each-
back, 7 D. C. 66.
loioa. — Barker v. Brink, 5 Iowa 481.
Massachusetts. — Carley v. Vance, 17 Mass.
389.
'Neio Torlc. — Sidenberg t: Ely, 90 N. Y.
257, 43 Am. Rep. 163, 11 Abb. Pr. N. S. 354;
Hill V. Place, 36 How. Pr. 26.
Pennsylvania. — Wagenblast v. McKean, 2
Grant 393; Sheredin v. Gaul, 2 Dall. 190,
1 L. ed. 344; Sharpless v. Dobbins, 1 Del.
[V.E]
Co. 25 ; Vosburg v. Reynolds, 8 Luz. Leg.
Reg. 283.
United States. — Boulton v. Moore, 14 Fed.
922, 11 Biss. 500.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tender," § 68.
But see Hill v. Carter, 101 Mich. 158, 59
N. W. 413.
Before imparlance. — A tender at common
law should be pleaded in form before any
imparlance. Sharpless p. Dobbins, 1 Del.
Co. (Pa.) 25. But see Tiernan f. Napier,
5 Yerg. (Tenn.) '410, where the plea was
allowed after a judgment on a writ of in-
quiry was set aside.
86. Robinson v. Batchelder, 4 N. H. 40;
York V. Newland, 10 Humphr. (Tenn.) 330.
See Schrader v. Dolfein, 21 Ind. 238.
It must be specially pleaded in a justice's
court as well as in a court of record. Sei-
bert V. Kline, 1 Pa. St. 38; Griffin v. Tyson,
17 Vt. 35.
87. See the statutes of the several states.
And see Briekett t. Wallace, 98 Mass. 528;
Warren t: Nichols, 6 Mete. (Mass.) 261;
Colby v. Stevens, 38 N. H. 191; Clough v.
Clough, 26 N. H. 24; Bliss v. Houghton, 16
N. H. 90; Davis v. Nelson, 73 Vt. 328, 50
Atl. 1094; Spaulding v. Warner, 57 Vt. 654;
Adams v. Morgan, 39 Vt. 302 ; Smith p. Wil-
bur, 35 Vt. 133; Woodcock v. Clark, 18 Vt.
333; Powers v. Powers, 11 Vt. 262; Pratt v.
Gallup, 7 Vt. 344; May v. Brownell, 3 Vt.
463.
88. Woodcock v. Clark, 18 Vt. 333; Mc-
Daniels v. Reed, 17 Vt. 674; Powers v. Pow-
ers, 11 Vt. 262. And see Jones v. Rahilly,
16 Minn. 320; Macon v. Owens, 1 Brev.
(S. C.) 69.
89. /ZZinots.— McDaniel v. Upton, 45 111.
App. 151.
lotoa. — Johnson v. Triggs, 4 Greene 97.
Massachusetts. — Grover v. Smith, 165
Mass. 132, 42 N. E. 555, 52 Am. St. Rep.
506; Briekett v. Wallace, 98 Mass. 528.
Pennsylvania.— Seibert v. Kline, 1 Pa. St.
38.
Vermont.— Chipman v. Bates, 5 Vt. 143.
TENDER
[38 Cye.] IGY
occurring subsequently to the rejection of the tender,"" and in some cases is held
to be a plea in bar of the action."' It was originally considered in the nature of
a dilatory plea and was construed with strictness, but is now considered a plea
to the merits.?^
3. Manner of Pleading, and Sufficiency of Allegations — a. In General. In
pleading tender there must be allegations of all facts necessary to establish a
legal tender,"^ and the circumstances of the tender should be pleaded with par-
ticularity."* A refusal must be alleged as the refusal as well as the tender
is traversable; "^ and in equity, if the tender is the foundation of the cause of
action, without which the suit could not be maintained, the complaint must aver
all the facts which are necessary in pleading a tender at law."" A plea of tender to
a part of an entire claim is not good, without in the same plea, in some way, dis-
posing of the residue of the claim by alleging payment, set-off, or that no more
90. Brent f. Fenner, 4 Ark. 160 ; Ayres v.
Pease, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 393; Huntington
f. Ziegler, 2 Ohio St. 10. See Lilienthal v.
McCormick, 86 Fed. 100.
In Vermont a tender of amends and costs
under the statute (Gen. St. c. 25, § 44) is
not the subject of a plea in bar; its effect
is only on the subsequent costs (Adams v.
Morgan, 39 Vt. 302; Smith i\ Wilbur, 35
Vt. 133) ; and in scire facias against the
recognizer on an appeal-bond a tender affects
only the claim for additional costs (Holmes
V. Woodruff, 20 Vt. 97).
91. Wheeler v. Woodward, 66 Pa. St. 158;
Sheehan v. Eosen, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 298.
A tender and refusal after suit brought
is, as a plea, no bar of the action generally
(Haughton f. Leary, 20 N. C. 14) ; but only
of further maintenance of the action (Ire-
land V. Montgomery, 34 Ind. 174).
92. Tiernan v. Napier, 5 Yerg. (Tenn.)
410; Kilwick v. Maidman, 1 Burr. 59; Moore
r. Smith, 1 H. Bl. 369.
93. Cothran v. Scanlan, 34 Ga. 555; In-
diana Bond Co. V. Jameson, 24 Ind. App. 8,
56 N. E. 37 ; Towles v. Carpenter, 62 W. Va.
151, 57 S. E. 365.
94. Duff V. Fisher, 15 Cal. 375 ; Towles v.
Carpenter, 62 W. Va. 151, 57 S. E. 365;
Harding v. York Knitting Mills, 142 Fed.
228.
A plea of readiness and willingness is not
sufficient. Heine r. Treadwell, 72 Cal. 217,
13 Pac. 503; Englander t\ Rogers, 41 Cal.
420. See also Smith v. Loomis, 7 Conn. 110;
Newby v. Rogers, 40 Ind. 9; Dickerson v.
Hayes, 26 Minn. 100, 1 N. W. 834; Bar-
ney %\ Bliss, 1 D. Chipm. (Vt.) 399, 12 Am.
Dec. 696.
There must be an allegation of actual pro-
duction of the money and an offer of it, or
an excuse for its non-production. McGehee
V. Jones, 10 Ga. 127; Indiana Bond Co. t\
Jameson, 24 Ind. App. 8, 56 N. E. 37 ; Dick-
erson y. Hayes, 26 Minn. 100, 1 N. W. 834.
See McNeil v. Sun, etc., Bldg., etc., Co., 75
N. Y. App. Div. 290, 78 N. Y. Suppl. 90,
where it is held that a denial of an allega-
tion that a sum was " duly tendered " raises
an issue.
Where a formal tender could not be made,
as where the payee did not attend at the
place to receive the money, such fact, to-
gether with a readiness at the place, must
be alleged. Commonwealth Bank v. Hickey,
4 Litt. (Ky.) 225.
If the thing to be performed is a specific
act, a special performance must be averred.
Tinney v. Ashley, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 546, 26
Am. Dec. 620.
Allegation of tender held sufficient see
Lowe V. Yolo County Consol. Water Co., 8
Cal. App. 167, 96 Pac. 379; Askew «. Thomp-
son, 129 Ga. 325, 58 S. E. 854.
95. Indiana Bond Co. v. Jameson, 24 Ind.
App. 8, 56 N. E. 37; Towles r. Carpenter, 62
W. Va. 151, 57 S. E. 365; Lancashire f. Kel-
lingworth, Comyns 116, 92 Eng. Reprint 991,
1 Ld. Rayra. 686, 91 Eng. Reprint 1357, 12
Mod. 529, 88 Eng. Reprint 1498, 3 Salk. 242,
91 Eng. Reprint 862; Lea v. Exelby, Cro.
Eliz. 888, 78 Eng. Reprint 1112; Huish v.
Philips, Cro. Eliz. 754, 78 Eng. Reprint
986.
96. Georgia. — Cothran v. Scanlan, 34 Ga.
555 ; McGehee v. Jones, 10 Ga. 127.
Kentucky. — Taylor v. Reed, 5 T. B. Mon.
36.
Maine. — Lumsden v. Manson, 96 Me. 357,
52 Atl. 783.
New Jersey. — Shields v. Lozear, 22 N. J.
Eq. 447.
United States. — Sheets t\ Selden, 7 Wall.
416, 19 L. ed. 166.
Strictness in alleging tender in equity. —
It is frequently stated that the same strict-
ness in alleging a tender is not required in
equity as at law, but the confusion arises
as a result of the courts failing to distin-
guish between those cases where the tender
is important only as bearing upon the ques-
tion of costs, where the rights of the party
is not dependent upon a tender, and those
cases where the tender affects a particular
result, such as the discharge of a lien, where
it is the very foundation upon which the
right to relief rests. See Glos v. Goodrich,
175 111. 20, 51 N. E. 643; Livingston County
Bd. V. Henneberry, 41 111. 179; Webster l\
French, 11 111. 254; Binford v. Boardman,
44 Iowa 53; Breitenbach v. Turner, 18 Wis.
140.
A plea of an offer to do equity required in
some jurisdictions is not a plea of tender,
but a mere averment of a willingness. It
does not take the place of a tender which
ought to be made before suit. Dotterer v.
Freeman, 88 Ga. 479, 14 S. E. 863.
[VI, A, 3, a]
168 [38 Cye.J
TENDER
than the sum tendered was ever due; otherwise the residue will stand admitted
and the plea would be bad as alleging an offer of a part only."
b. Particular- Allegations — (i) Place. The place where the tender was
made must be set out with particularity."*
(ii) Time. The time a tender was made must be alleged with definiteness,"'
and that it was made before the action was commenced/ unless the tender is one
authorized by statute to be made after action brought, in which case there must
be an averment of a tender of a specific amount upon the debt and a certain amount
for costs.^
(hi) Medium and Amount. The precise amount offered must be alleged
if the tender was in money/ and the money tendered must be described suffi-
ciently so that its nature may be determined.* In case of chattels tendered,
97. Dixon v. Clark, 5 C. B. 365, 5 D. & L.
155, 16 L. J. C. P. 237, 57 E. C. L. 365;
Bauld r. Fraser, 34 Nova Scotia 178. But
see Cotton v. Godwin, 9 Dowl. P. C. 763,
10 L. J. Exch. 243, 7 M. & W. 147; Tyler
V. Bland, 1 Dowl. P. C. N. S. 608, 11 L. J.
Exch. 257, 9 M. & W. 338.
98. Kendal v. Talbot, 1 A. K. Marsh.
(Ky.) 321; Trabue (-. Kay, 4 Bibb (Kv.)
226; Colyer v. Hutching, 2 Bibb (Ky.) 404;"
Jouett V. W.ngnon, 2 Bibb (Ky.) 269, 5 Am.
Dec. 602. See also Harding v. York Knit-
ting Mills, 142 Fed. 228.
99. Georgia. — Cothrans v. Mitchell, 54
Ga. 498.
Mississippi. — Lanier v. Trigg, 6 Sm. & M.
641, 45 Am. Dec. 293.
OMo.— Vance r. Blair, 18 Ohio 532, 51
Am. Dec. 467.
Virginia. — Downman v. Downman, 1
Wash. 26.
West Virginia. — Shank r. Groflf, 45 W. Va.
543, 32 S.E. 248.
Where the declaration did not disclose
when the debt sued for fell due or from
what time it bore interest, a plea of tender
was held good which averred a willingness
to pay said sum ever since it became due.
Shepherd v. Wysong, 3 W. Va. 46.
An averment of tender " on or about the
first day of March " has been held good as
against a general demurrer. Haile v. Smith,
113 Cal. 656, 45 Pac. 872.
Time of day. — If the allegations show
that the tenderee was present, it is sufficient
to state that the tender was made to him
on' a certain day ; but if the party who was
to receive was absent from the place of per-
formance, the pleader must allege the tender
to have been made at the uttermost con-
venient time of the day fixed for perform-
ance. Duckham v. Smith, 5 T. B. Mon.
(Ky.) 372;' Jouett v. Wagnon, 2 Bibb (Ky.)
269, 5 Am. Dec. 602; Tiernan v. Napier, 5
Yerg. (Tenn.) 410; Savary v. Goe, 21 Fed.
Cas. No. 12,388, 3 Wash. 140; Lancashire v.
Kellingworth, Comvns 116, 92 Eng. Reprint
991, 1 Ld. Eavm. 686, 91 Eng. Reprint 1357,
12 Mod. 529,^88 Eng. Reprint 1498, 3 Salk.
242, 91 Eng. Reprint 862; Halsey i\ Car-
penter, Cro. Jac. 359, 79 Eng. Reprint 308;
Tinckler v. Prentice, 4 Taunt. 549, 13 Rev.
Rep. 684. A plea that he was at the place
ready to pay during three hours before the
Betting of the sun and at the setting of the
[VI, A, 3, a]
sun, on the day of payment, but no one came
has been held sufficient. Walter v. Dewey,
16 Johns. (N. Y.) 222.
1. Cope i\ Bryson, 60 N. C. 112; Win-
ningham v. Redding, 51 N. C. 126; Jacobs
V. Oren, 30 Oreg. 593, 48 Pac. 431.
2. Eaton v. Wells, 82 N. Y. 576; Walsh
V. Southworth, 6 Exch. 150, 20 L. J. M. C.
165, 2 L. M. & P. 91. See Young v. Mc-
Waid, 57 Iowa 101, 10 N. W. 291.
3. Alabama. — Chapman i'. Lee, 55 Ala.
616, holding that a plea of tender of the
principal, without showing any legal reason
why the interest was not also tendered, is
bad on demurrer.
Indiana. — Goss v. Bowen, 104 Ind. 207,
2 N. E. 704; Bothwell v. Millikan, 104 Ind.
162, 2 N. E. 959, 3 N. E. 816; Soice r. Huff,
102 Ind. 422, 26 N. E. 89 ; Bailey t. Troxell,
43 Ind. 432.
Minnesota. — Dickerson v. Hayes, 26 Minn.
100, 1 N. W. 834; St. Paul Div. No. 1 S. T.
V. Brown, 9 Minn. 157.
New Hampshire. — Ffrost v. Butler, 58
N. H. 146.
Neiv York. — Sussman v. Mason, 10 Misc. ,
20, 30 N. Y. Suppl. 542; People v. Banker,
8 How. Pr. 258.
England. — Smith r. Manners, 5 C. B. N. S.
632, 5 Jur. N. S. 549, 28 L. J. C. P. 220, 94
E. C. L. 632.
Where more than one sum is sued for the
plea should state upon which account the
tender was made. Robinson r. Ward, 8 Q. B.
920, 10 Jur. 409, 15 L. J. Q. B. 271, 55
E. C. L. 920.
It must be alleged that the sum tendered
was sufficient or was the amount due. Con-
ger V. Hutchinson, 6 U. C. Q. B. O. S. 644.
An allegation of a tender of the amount
due and interest on that sum at seven per
cent from the due date to the time of the
tender was held sufficiently specific in an
action by a creditor to redeem land of his
debtor sold upon execution. Prescott V.
Everts, 4 Wis. 314.
Where the obligation was payable in
United States currency, and Canadian money
was tendered, it was held that the amount
offered must be alleged to be equal in value
of a certain sum of the currency .of the
United States at the date of the tender.
White i\ Baker, 15 U. C. C. P. 292.
4. California. — Magraw v. McGlynn, 26
Cal. 420, holding that it is not enough to
TENDER
[38 Cyc] 169
they must be go described that they can be distinguished and known.' If the
articles were to be of a certain value, or a sum of money was payable in chattels,
the value must be stated positively," and, if they were to be appraised, an appraisal
according to the contract must be alleged.'
(iv) Continuing Readiness. If the debt or duty is discharged by a
tender, or the tender is relied upon as a defense to a foreclosure of a lien or the
enforcement of some collateral right, it is sufficient without more, to plead the
tender and refusal,' and in pleading a tender of chattels it is not necessary to plead
a continuing readiness to pay.' But where the debt or duty remains after a
tender and refusal, it is not enough for the party who pleads the tender, in an
action to recover the debt, or damages for a failure to perform the duty, to plead
the tender and refusal alone, but he must plead that ever since the tender he has
at all times been and still is ready and willing to pay the money or perform the
duty,'" and where it is necessary to keep the tender good, the rule in equity in
reference to pleading continued readiness to pay is no less strict than at law."
(v) Profert In Curia. Where the debt or duty is not discharged by a
tender and refusal, and the tender is made the ground of the cause of action or
defense, the tenderer must plead in addition to a continuing readiness a profert
in curia, that is, that the money has already been brought iiito court or is now
allege that a certain sum in money or lawful
money was tendered, as the term " money "
includes everything that circulates as money
whether a legal tender or not, and if a par-
ticular kind of money was to be paid, the
plea should show that the kind plaintiff was
entitled to receive was tendered.
Indiana. — Gtoss t\ Bowen, 104 Ind. 207,
2 N. E. 704.
Mississippi. — Bonnell v. Covington, 7 How.
322, fiolding that where a note is payable in
baniv-notes, there must be an allegation that
those tendered were current.
Virginia. — Downman v. Downman, 1 Wash.
26.
Washington. — Ralph v. Lomer, 3 Wash.
401, 28 Pac. 760.
If the notes of a paiticular bank are to be
paid, it is sufficient to allege a tender of the
notes without alleging they were at par.
Smith V. Elder, 7 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 507.
But if bank-notes were tendered upon a note
payable in good bank-notes, there must be
an averment that they were of par value.
Smith V. Elder, 7 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 507;
McNairy v. Bell, 1 Yerg. (Tenn.) 502, 24
Am. Dec. 454.
5. Smith ■!;. Loomis, 7 Conn. 110; Nichols
V. Whiting, 1 Boot (Conn.) 443; Lilienthal
V. McCormick, 86 Fed. 100.
6. Johnson v. Butler, 4 Bibb (Ky.) 97.
7. Stockton V. Creager, 51 Ind. 262; Bo-
hannons v. Lewis, 3 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 376.
8. Hunter v. Le Coute, 6 Cow. (N. Y.)
728.
9. Indiana. — Mitchell v. Merrill, 2 Blackf.
87, 18 Am. Dec. 128.
Kentucky.— Mitchell v. Gregory, 1 Bibb
449, 4 Am. Dec. 655.
New York. — Slingerland v. Morse, 8
Johns. 474. .
Texas. — Dewees v. Lockhart, 1 Tex. 535.
Vermont. — Barney v. Bliss, 1 D. Chipm.
399, 12 Am. Dec. 696.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 70.
But see Nixon v. Bullock, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.)
^14; Walters v. -McAllister, 4 Hayw. (Tenn.)
299.
10. Alabama. — Terrell Coal Co. v. Lacey,
(1901) 31 So. 109; McCalley v. Otey, 90
Ala. 302, 8 So. 157.
Florida. — Caruthers ». Williams, 21 Fla.
485.
Georgia. — Cothrans t\ Mitchell, 54 Ga.
498; Cothran v. Scanlan, 34 Ga. 555.
Illinois. — Wright v. McNeely, 11 111. 241.
Indiana. — Wilson v. McVey, 83 Ind. 108.
Iowa. — Shugart v. Pattee, 37 Iowa 422;
Barker v. Brink, 5 Iowa 481.
Maitie. — Lyon v. Williamson, 27 Me. 149.
Massachusetts. — Town v. Trow, 24 Pick.
168.
Mississippi. — Besancon v. Shirley, 9 Sm.
& M. 457; Lanier v. Trigg, 6 Sm. & M. 641,
45 Am. Dec. 293.
New Hampshire. — Brown v. Simons, 45
N. H. 211.
New York. — Wilder v. Seelye, 8 Barb. 408 ;
Lamb v. Lathrop, 13 Wend. 95, 27 Am. Dec.
174.
South Carolina. — Walker V: Walker, 17
S. C. 329.
Tennessee. — Miller v. McKinney, 5 Lea 93.
United States.— The Walter W. Pharo, 29
Fed. Cas. No. 17,124, 1 Lowell 437.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tender," § 70.
Readiness to pay same kind of money. —
The plea must show that defendant has been
and still is ready to pay the same kind of
money as that tendered. Hardin v. Titus,
Dall. (Tex.) 622.
11. Cothran v. Scanlan, 34 Ga. 555.
In a suit to redeem, an allegation that
plaintiff has " always since the making of
the tender aforesaid, been ready and willing
to pay said sum of money, so tendered as
aforesaid, to said defendant, and said plain-
tiff still is ready and willing so to do, and
now brings the same into court for that pur-
pose, and hereby offers to pay the same,"
was held suiTicient. Thompson v. Foster, 21
Minn. 319. ■
[VI, A, 3. b, (v)]
170 [38 Cye.J
TENDER
brought into court ready to be paid." The frofert in curia is not a traversable
part of the plea."
4. Joinder of Pleas. A plea of tender of a sum due upon a contract and a
denial of the right of action for the sum are inconsistent pleas and must not be
joined; " but in an action for damages where the statute allows a tender to be
made and pleaded defendant may deny that plaintiff was damaged and also
plead a tender of amends."
B. Demurrer, Reply, or Motion to Make Definite. A plea of tender
must be met by plaintiff by a reply, otherwise it will be admitted," although it
12. Alabama.— Booth V: Comegys, Minor
201. See also Christian f. Kiagara F. Ins. Co.,
101 Ala. 634, 14 So. 374; McCalley r. Otey,
90 Ala. 302, 8 So. 157; Caldwell r. Smith,
77 Ala. 157.
Colorado. — Westcott v. Fatten, 10 Colo.
App. 544, 51 Pac. 1021.
Florida. — Franklin v. Ayer, 22 Fla. 654;
Caruthers v. Williams, 21 Fla. 485; For-
cheimer v. Holly, 14 Fla. 239; Spann v.
Baltzell, 1 Fla. 301, 44 Am. Dec. 346.
Indiana. — Goss r. Bowen, 104 Ind. 207,
2 N. E. 704; Conwall v. Pumphrey, 9 Ind..
135, 68 Am. Dec. 611; Ausem v. Byrd, 6
Ind. 475.
Iowa. — Shugart v. Pattee, 37 Iowa 422.
Kentucky. — Harris v. Campbell, 4 Dana
586 ; Slack v. Price, 1 Bibb 272.
Maine. — Gilpatrick r. Bicker, 82 Me. 185,
19 Atl. 165; Lyon f. Williamson, 27 Me.
149.
Maryland. — Soper r. Jones, 56 Md. 503;
Karthaus i\ Owings, 6 Harr. & J. 134.
Massachusetts. — Briel-ett r. Wallace, 98
Mass. 528; Warren r. Kichols, 6 Mete. 261;
Carley v. Vance, 17 Mass. 389.
New Jersey. — ^Neldon v. Roof, 55 N. J. Eq.
608, 38 Atl. 429.
NeiD Torfc.— Shiland r. Leob, 58 N. Y.
App. Div. 565, 69 N. Y. Suppl. 11; Sill r.
Place, 7 Rob. 389, 5 Abb. Pr. N. S. 18, 36
How. Pr. 26; Cronin r. Epstein, 1 N. Y.
Suppl. 69 laffirmcd in 15 Daly 50, 2 N. Y.
Suppl. 709] ; Simpson r. French, 25 How.
Pr. 464; Eddy v. O'Hara, 14 Wend. 221;
Ayres r. Pease, 12 Wend. 393.
Oregon. — Jacobs v. Oren, 30 Oreg. 593, 48
Pac. 431.
Pennsylvania. — Sheredine v. Gaul, 2 Dall.
190, 1 L. ed. 344; Sharpless v. Dobbins, 1
Del. Co. 25.
Tennessee. — Miller v. McKinney, 5 Lea 93.
Virginia. — Robinson r. Gaines, 3 Call 243.
Washington. — Ralph r. Lomer, 3 Wash.
401, 28 Pac. 760.
England. — Home r. Lewin, 1 Ld. Eaym.
639, 91 Eng. Reprint 1328.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 71.
Construction of plea. — A plea that " de-
fendant now brings the money into court"
means that the money was brought in with
the answer. Neldon v. Roof, 55 N. J. Eq.
608, 38 Atl. 429.
Plaintiff does not waive the light to ob-
ject that the plea of tender does not allege
payment into court, by going to trial.
Becker r. Boon, 61 N. Y. 317.
When objection to plea must be taken. —
The objection to the plea on the ground that
[VI, A, 3, b, (v)]
it did not contain an allegation of payment
into court must be taken at the trial. After
judgment it comes too late. Diebold Safe,
etc., Co. r. Holt, 4 Okla. 479, 46 Pac. 512.
13. Platner v. Lehman, 26 Hun (N. Y.)
374.
14. Connecticut. — Hatch v. Thompson, 67
Conn. 74, 34 Atl. 770.
Iowa. — Brayton v. Delaware County, 16
Iowa 44.
Louisiana. — Davis v. Millaudon, 17 La.
Ann. 97, 87 Am. Dec. 517.
Maryland.- — Union Bank v. Ridgely, 1
Harr. & G. 324.
Kew York. — Livingston V. Harrison, 2
E. D. Smith 197.
England. — Alderson v. Dodding, Barnes
Notes 359, 94 Eng. Reprint 954; Dobie v.
Tarkan, 10 Exch. 776, 3 Wkly. Rep. 247;
Orgill V. Kemshead, 4 Taunt. 459; Jenkins
v. Edwards, 5 T. R. 97, 101 Eng. Reprint 55;
Maclellan t\ Howard, 4 T. R. 194, 100 Eng.
Reprint 969; Dowgall v. Bowman, 3 Wils.
C. P. 145, 95 Eng. Reprint 980.
Denial and tender of smaller sum. — Un-
der tlie statute allowing a. defendant to set
up as many defenses as he may have, it was
held that a denial of an alleged employment
and a tender of a smaller svmi than that
claimed was not so inconsistent as to pre-
vent their being pleaded in the same answer.
Clarke v. Lyon County, 7 Nev. 75.
15. Gerring v. Manning, Barnes Notes
366, 94 Eng. Reprint 957; Martin v. Kester-
ton, W. Bl. 1089, 96 Eng. Reprint 643.
16. Davis r. Henry, 63 Miss. 110.
A denial of a tender of a sum alleged un-
der a videlicet has been held not to put in
issue a tender of any greater or less sum
than that specified. Marks v. Lahee, 3 Bing.
N. Cas. 408, 6 L. J. C. P. 69, 4 Scott 137, 32
E. C. L. 193.
Where a plea of tender is of a sum, being
sufficient amends, plaintiff should reply de-
nying the tender of the amount, or alleging
its insufficiency, and not that defendant did
not tender sufficient amends. Williams v.
Price, 3 B. & Ad. 695, 1 L. J. K. B. 258, 23
E. C. L. 306, 110 Eng. Reprint 254.
A reply alleging that accrued costs were
not included in the amount tendered has
been held good. Hampshire Manufacturers'
Bank v. Billings, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 87.
A replication that before the tender a
larger sum was owing and was demanded
and refused is no answer to a plea of tender
of a smaller sum. Brandon v. Newington,
3 Q. B. 915, 3 G. & D. 194, 7 Jur. 60, 12
L. .1. Q. B. 20, 43 E. C. L. 1035.
TENDER
[38 Cyc] 171
has been held that the absence of a formal traverse to a plea of tender is cured
by verdict." If a plea of tender is insufficient, as where it imports a conditional
tender,*' or fails to state the time with certainty,*" or that defendant was always
ready and willing since the tender to pay the money, ^'' or it is shown by the com-
plaint that a tender was necessary and it is not pleaded,^* the defect should be
taken advantage of by demurrer.^^ Where the allegations are indefinite and
uncertain, a motion may be made to make them more definite and certain.^^
C. Paying Money Into Court — l. Necessity — a. In General. A tender
which in order to be effective must be kept good '"' must be supported by bring-
ing the money into court at the time of pleading the tender,^^ upon an order of
17. Soper v. Jones, 56 Md. 503.
18. Hall V. Norwalk F. Ins. Co., 57 Conn.
105, 17 Atl. 356.
19. Haile v. Smith, 113 Cal. 656, 45 Pao.
872.
20. Lanier v. Trigg, 6 Sm. & M. (Miss.)
641, 45 Am. Dec. 293; Clough v. Clough, 26
N. H. 24.
21. Brickett v. Wallace, 98 Mass. 528;
Eennyson v. Eeifsnvder, 11 Pa. Co. Ct. 157.
22. Gardner v. Black, 98 Ala. 638, 12 So.
813; Skipwith v. Morton, 2 Call (Va.) 277.
23. Bateman f. Johnson, 10 Wis. 1.
24. See supra, IV, A.
25. Alabama. — Commercial Bank v. Cren-
shaw, 103 Ala. 497, 15 So. 741; Commercial
F. Ins. Co. f. Allen, 80 Ala. 571, 1 So. 202;
Park r. Wiley, 67 Ala. 310; Daughdrill v.
Sweeney, 41 Ala. 310; Booth v. Comegys,
Minor 201.
Arlcansas. — Kelly v. Keith, 85 Ark. 30,
106 S. W. 1173 (holding that actual pay-
ment is necessary) ; Cole v. Moore, 34 Ark.
582; Schearff v. Dodge, 33 Ark. 340; Ham-
lett V. Tallman, 30 Ark. 505.
Delaware. — Cullen v. Green, 5 Harr. 17.
Florida. — Franklin v. Ayer, 22 Fla. 654;
Matthews v. Lindsay, 20 Fla. 962; Spann v.
Baltzell, 1 Fla. 301, 46 Am. Dec. 346.
Georgia. — Mason v. Crom, 24 Ga. 211.
Illinois.— 0''Ri\ey v. Suver, 70 111. 85; De
Wolf V. Long, 7 111. 679; Vallette v. Bil-
inski, 68 111. App. 361 [affirmed in 167 111.
564, 47 N. E. 770].
Indiana. — Smith v. Felton, 85 Ind. 223;
Hazelett v. Butler University, 84 Ind. 230;
Evansville, etc., R. Co. p. Marsh, 57 Ind.
505; Clark v. Mullenix, 11 Ind. 532; Phoenix
Ins. Co. V. Overman, 21 Ind. App. 516, 52
N. E. 771.
Iowa. — ^West v. Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co., 117
Iowa 147, 90 N. W. 523; Deacon v. Central
Iowa Inv. Co., 95 Iowa 180, 63 N. W. 673;
Long V. Howard, 35 Iowa 148; Phelps v.
Kathron, 30 Iowa 231 ; Jones v. Mullinix, 25
Iowa 198; Eastman v. Rapids Dist. Tp., 21
Iowa 590; Hay den v. Anderson, 17 Iowa
158; Freeman v. Fleming, 5 Iowa 460.
Kansas. — Arthur p. Arthur, 38 Kan. 691,
17 Pac. 187.
Kentucky. — Haddix V. Wilson, 3 Bush
523; Jarboe v. McAtee, 7 B. Mon. 279;
Slack r. Price, 1 Bibb 272.
Maine. — Gilpatrick v. Ricker, 82 Me. 185,
19 Atl. 165.
Maryland. — Soper v. Jones, 56 Md. 503.
Massachusetts. — Warren V. Nichols, 6
Mete. 261.
Michigan. — Browning v. Crouse, 40 Mich.
339.
Minnesota. — Balme v. Wambaugh, 16
Minn. 116.
Missouri. — Mahan v. Waters, 60 Mo. 167.
But see Klein v. Keyes, 17 Mo. 326.
Nebraska. — ^Portsmouth Sav. Bk. r. Yeiser,
81 Nebr. 343, 116 N. W. 38; Clark v. Neu-
mann, 56 Nebr. 374, 76 N. W. 892.
New Hampshire. — Felker v. Hazelton, 68
N. H. 304, 38 Atl. 1051; Allen v. Cheever,
61 N. H. 32; Frost v. Flanders, 37 N. H.
549; Bailey v. Metcalf, 6 N. H. 156.
Neio Jersey. — ^Whittaker v. Belvidere Rol-
ler-Mill Co., '55 N. J. Eq. 674, 38 Atl. 289;
Neldon v. Roof, 55 N. J. Eq. 608, 38 Atl.
429; Shields v. Lozear, 22 N. J. Eq. 447.
New York. — ^Werner v. Tuch, 127 N. Y.
217, 27 N. E. 845, 24 Am. St. Rep. 443;
Halpin i\ Phenix Ins. Co., 118 N. Y. 165, 23
N. E. 482; Becker v. Boon, 61 N. Y. 317;
Riley v. Cheesman, 75 Hun 387, 27 N. Y.
Suppl. 453; Wilder v. Seelye, 8 Barb. 408;
Hill v. Place, 7 Rob. 389, 36 How. Pr. 267,
5 Abb. Pr. N. S. 18; Livingston v. Harrison,
2 E. D. Smith 197; Weil v. Lippman, 55
Misc. 443, 105 N. Y. Suppl. 516; Railway
Advertising Co. v. Posner, 31 Misc. 783, 65
N. Y. Suppl. 226; Halsey v. Flint, 15 Abb.
Pr. 367; Bronson r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 40
How. Pr. 148; Brown v. Ferguson, 2 Den.
196; Brooklyn Bank r. De Grauw, 23 Wend.
342, 35 Am. Dec. 569; Retan v. Drew, 19
Wend. 304; Eddy v. O'Hara, 14 Wend.
221.
North Carolina. — Parker v. Beasley, 116
N. C. 1, 21 S. E. 955, 33 L. R. A. 231 ; State
V. Briggs, 65 N. C. 159; Murray v. Windley,
29 N. C. 201, 47 Am. Dec. 324.
Pennsylvania. — ^Wagenblast v. McKean, 2
Grant 393; Bailey v. Bucher, 6 Watts 74
Sheredine v. Gaul, 2 Dall. 190, 1 L. ed. 344
Eckman v. Hildebrand, 1 Lane. Bar 41
Seatington-Bangor Slate Syndicate i\ Server,
12 Montg. Co. Rep. 162.
South Carolina. — Fishburne v. Sanders, 1
Nott & M. 242.
Tennessee. — Keys v. Roder, 1 Head 19.
TeaJflS.— Toolte v. Bonds, 29 Tex. 419;
Brock V. Jones, 16 Tex. 461.
Vermont. — Perry v. Ward, 20 Vt. 92;
Wing V. Hurlburt, 15 Vt. 607, 40 Am. Dec.
695; Pratt v. Gallup, 7 Vt. 344.
Virginia. — Shumaker r. Nichols, 6 Gratt.
592; Robinson i: Gaines, 3 Call 243.
West Virginia. — Gilkeson v. Smith, 15
W. Va. 44.
Wisconsin. — Rice v. Kahn, 70 Wis. 323,
[VI, C, 1, a]
172 [38 Cye.]
TENDER
court.^" The rule applies to justices' courts," to courts of admiralty,^' and to all
inferior courts exercising civil jurisdiction; ^' and the practice extends to actions
for the recovery of an unliquidated sum in cases where the statute permits a
tender to be made; ^ and generally if a tender and refusal is made the basis of a
proceeding, or of a cause of action at law or in equity, in cases where, but for the
tender and refusal, the right to relief at the time of commencing the action or
proceeding would not have existed, the amount tendered must be brought into
court.^' But where the right to relief is not dependent upon a tender and refusal,
it is not necessary to bring the money into court,^^ and if a sum is tendered which,
in an action by the tenderer upon the obligation, is a proper set-off in behalf of
the tenderee, the money need not be brought in.^
b. Where Lien Is Discharged by Tender. Where a lien or any security is
discharged by a tender and refusal, such tender may be pleaded as a defense in
an action based upon such collateral right without bringing the money into
35 N. W. 465; Smith v. Phillips, 47 Wis.
202, 2 N. W. 285.
United States. — Wallace v. McConnell, 13
Pet. 136, 10 L. ed. 95; Coghlan i-. South
Carolina E. Co., 32 Fed. 316; Boardman v.
Bethel, 3 Fed; Cas. No. 1,585; Bounty v.
Kerrin, 3 Fed. Cas. No. l,697o.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 79.
The object of bringing money into court
upon a plea of tender is to keep the tender
good, and place the money where the party
entitled to it may receive it at any time.
Johnson v. Triggs, 4 Greene (Iowa) 97;
Becker v. Boon, 61 N. Y. 317.
A statute authorizing a tender to be made
in writing does not change the rule in this
respect. Shugart r. Pattee, 37 Iowa 422;
Warrington v. Pollard, 24 Iowa 281, 95 Am.
Dec. 727; Mohn r. Stoner, 14 Iowa 115;
Johnson v. Triggs, 4 Greene (Iowa) 97.
It is a matter of practice to be dealt with
summarily by the court and not a ques-
tion to be litigated at the trial. Gilpatrick
V. Picker, 82 Me. 185, 19 Atl. 165; Platner
V. Lehman, 26 Hun (N. Y.) 374; Sheriden
r. Smith, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 538; Newton v.
Allis, i6 Wis. 197.
Where the tenderee has put it out of his
power to perform on his part, the tender need
not be kept good by payment Into court.
Furber v. National Metal Co., 118 N. Y. App.
Div. 263, 103 N. Y. Suppl. 490.
Where the tenderer has no means of know-
ing the amount due, an averment of that
fact and of readiness and willingness to pay
may be sufficient without actual payment in-
to court. Pierce f. Halsell, 90 Miss. 171, 43
So. 83; Moore r. Brown, 46 Tex. Civ. App.
523, 103 S. W. 242.
86. Illinois. — Hammer v. Kaufman, 39 111.
87.
Massachusetts. — • Hart
Allen 145.
Minnesota. — Davidson
Minn. 445.
New Jersey. — Levan
N. J. L. 41, 25 Atl. 854.
New York. — Baker v. Hunt, 1 Wend. 103.
North Carolina. — Murray v. Windley, 29
N. C. 201, 47 Am. Dec. 324.
Pennsylvania. — Harvey v. Hackley, 6
Watts 264.
[VI, C, 1, a]
V. Goldsmith,
f. Lamprey,
v. Sternfeld,
16
55
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tender," § 85.
27. McDaniel v. Upton, 45 111. App. 151;
Nelson v. Smith, 26 111. App. 57; Phelps f.
Town, 14 Mich. 374; Seibert v. Kline, 1 Pa.
St. 38; Keyes v. Eoder, 1 Head (Tenn.)
19.
In Alabama Eev. Code, § 2648, requiring a
plea of tender to be accompanied by a pay-
ment into court, is held not to apply to
actions before a justice. Jonson v. Nabring,
50 Ala. 392.
28. The Serapis, 37 Fed. 436.
29. Brickett v. Wallace, 98 Mass. 528,
action for rent in police court having civil
jurisdiction.
30. Dunbar v. De Boer, 44 111. App. 615.
See Solomon v. Bewieke, 2 Taunt. 317.
31. Alabama. — Commercial Bank i'. Cren-
shaw, 103 Ala. 497, 15 So. 741; Daughdrill
V. Sweeney, 41 Ala. 310.
Illinois. — De Wolf v. Long, 7 111. 679;
Doyle v. Teas, 5 III. 202.
Missouri. — Woolner v. Levy, 48 Mo. App.
469.
New Eampshire. — Frost v. Flanders, 37
N. H. 549 ; Bailey i: Metcalf, 6 N. H. 156.
New Jersey. — Shields v. Lozear, 22 N. J.
Eq. 447.
New York. — Werner v. Tuch, 127 N. Y.
217, 27 N. E. 845, 24 Am. St. Bep. 443
[affirming 52 Hun 269, 5 N. Y. Suppl. 219].
Vermont. — Perry r. Ward, 20 Vt. 92.
West Virginia. — Shank r. Groff, 45 W. Va.
543, 32 S. E. 248.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tender," § 81.
But see Eitchie r. Ege, OS Minn. 291, 59
N. W. 1020.
32. Alabama. — Beehe r. Buxton, 99 Ala.
117, 12 So. 567; McCalley v. Otey, 90 Ala.
302, 8 So. 157; Miller r. Louisville, etc., R.
Co., 83 Ala. 274, 4 So. 842, 3 Am. St. Rep.
722 ; Carlin v. Jones, 55 Ala. 624.
Indiana. — Ruckle v. Barbour, 48 Ind. 274.
Iowa. — Hayward v. Munger, 14 Iowa 516.
Missouri.— Whelen r. Eeilly, 61 Mo. 565.
Montana.— Asiiley v. Rocky Mountain Bell
Tel. Co., 25 Mont. 286, 64 Pac. 765.
Wiscoresin.— Mankel v. Belscamper, 84
Wis. 218, 54 N. W. 50O; Breitenbach v. Tan-
ner, 18 Wis. 140.
33. Schwartz r. Germania L. Ins. Co., 18
Minn. 448.
TENDER
[38 Cyc] 173
court.^* But where a tender and refusal is held not to extinguish a lien unless
kept good, the money must be brought into court at the time of commencing
an action or interposing a defense based upon the tender,'^ and even where a lien
is discharged by a tender and refusal, if the tender is made the basis of affirma-
tive relief, either by plaintiff or defendant, the money must be brought into court.^'
e. Effect of Failure to Pay. Bringing money into court is a requirement
for plaintiff's benefit,^' and he is entitled to have it brought in before he takes
issue on the plea,^* and a plea of tender with frofert in curia without the -profert
being made good by the actual deposit of the money in court is bad,'" and the
pleading may be returned by plaintiff,^" or the plea stricken from the record,^^
or the allegation of tender from the answer,''^ and judgment entered on the plea.^'
But this can be done only where the plea or tender goes to the whole issue, and
a judgment as for want of a plea which goes only to a part of the cause of action
will be set aside as irregular,** and in such case a motion should be made to strike
out the plea of tender.** Plaintiff may also apply for an order directing the money
to be brought into court nunc pro tunc, and in default thereof that the plea be
stricken,*^ and if after trial and the issue of tender found for defendant, it appears
that the money has not been brought into court, plaintiff is entitled to judgment.*'
Where a plea of tender with profert in curia goes only to the question of
interest and costs and the money has not been brought in, the court on its own
motion may interfere to save its own time from waste on immaterial issues,*'
a failure to make good the profert in curia being an irregularity to be dealt with
summarily by the court.**
d. Waiver. Payment into court being a requirement in favor of plaintiff,
he may waive it,*" as by neglecting to bring the irregularity to the attention of
34. Loughborough v. McNevin, 74 Cal.
250, 14 Pac. 369, 15 Pac. 773, 5 Am. St. Eep.
435; Hill v. Carter, 101 Mich. 158, 59 N. W.
413; Moynahan v. Moore, 9 Mich. 9, 77 Am.
Dec. 408; Cass v. Higenbotam, 100 N. Y.
248, 3 N. K 189; Kortrigbt v. Cady, 21 N. Y.
343', 78 Am. Dec. 145; Exchange F. Ins. Co. v.
Norris, 74 Hun (N. Y.) 527, 26 N. Y. Suppl.
823; Simpson v. French, 25 How. Pr. (N. Y.)
■464; Willis v. Sweet, 20 Nova Scotia 449.
Where an administrator tenders to an heir
the amount due him, an action on his bond
cannot be maintained, even though he does
not bring the amount tendered into court.
Potter V. Cummings, 18 Me. 55.
35. Roberts v. White, 146 Mass. 256, 15
N. E. 568; Landis v. Saxton, 89 Mo. 375, 1
S. W. 359 ; Woolner v. Levy, 48 Mo. App. 469 ;
Campbell v. Seeley, 38 Mo. App. 298 ; Musgat
V. Pumpelly, 46 Wis. 660, 1 N. W. 410.
36. Werner v. Tuch, 127 N. Y. 217, 27
N. E. 845, 24 Am. St. Rep. 443; Foster i:
Mayer, 70 Hun (N. Y.) 265, 24 N. Y. Suppl.
46. But see Wagenblast v. McKean, 2 Grant
(Pa.) 393.
37. Storer v. McGaw, 11 Allen (Mass.)
527.
38. Shepherd v. Wysong, 3 W. Va. 46.
39. Alabama. — ^Alexander v. Caldwell, 61
Ala. 543.
Colorado. — Westcott v. Patton, 10 Colo.
App. 544, 51 Pac. 1021.
Illinois. — Knox v. Light, 12 111. 86.
loi&a. — Deacon v. Central Iowa Inv. Co.,
95 Iowa 180, 63 N. W. 673.
Maine. — Gilpatrick v. Ricker, 82 Me. 185,
19 Atl. 165.
New Jersey. — Earle v. Earle, 16 N. J. L.
273; Stockton, v. Dundee Mfg. Co., 22 N. J.
Eq. 56.
New York. — Gray V. Green, 9 Hun 334;
Hennion v. ffipp, 22 Misc. 437, 50. N. Y.
Suppl, 760; Sheriden v. Smith, 2 Hill 538.
West Virginia. — Gilkenson v. Smith, 15
W. Va. 44.
Wisconsin, — Alexander v. Oneida County,
76 Wis. 56, 45 N". W. 21.
40. Platner v. Lehman, 26 Hun (N. Y.)
374; Simpson v. French, 25 How. Pr. (N. Y.)
464.
41. Knox V. Light, 12 111. 86.
42. Conwell v. Claypool, 8 Blackf. (Ind.)
124.
43. Monroe v. Chaldeck, 78 111. 429; Su-
preme Tent K. M. v. Hammers, 81 111. App.
560; Eyerson u. Kitchell, 2 N. J. L. 168;
Becker v. Boon, 61 N. Y. 317; Chapman v.
Hicks, 2 Cromp. & M. 633, 2 Dowl. P. C. 641,
3 L. J. Exch. 219; Pether v. Shelton, Str.
638, 93 Eng. Reprint 750.
44. Chapman v. Hicks, 2 Cromp. & M. 633,
2 Dowl. P. C. 641, 3 L. J. Exch. 219.
45. Morrison r. Jacoby, 114 Ind. 84, 14
N. E. 546, 15 N. E. 806; Conwell v. Clay-
pool, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 124.
46. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Blake, 49
Fed. 904.
47. Claflin f. Hawes, 8 Mass. 261; Eosen-
baum V. Greenbaum, 3'1 Misc. (N. Y.) 787,
65 N. Y. Suppl. 212; Fallon v. Farber, 28
Misc. (N. Y.) 197, 59 N. Y. Suppl. 11.
48. Gilpatrick v. Ricker, 82 Me. 185, 19
Atl. 165.
49. Gilpatrick v. Ricker, 82 Me. 185, 19
Atl. 165.
50. Storer f. McGaw, 11 Allen (Mass.) 527.
[VI, c, 1. d]
174 [38 CycJ
TENDER
the court and taking issue on the plea of tender.^' The waiver has been held, how-
ever, to be merely of the right to sign judgment as for want of a plea, or to have
the plea summarily stricken out, and plaintiff may object to the irregularity
upon motion for an order requiring the money to be brought in,^^ or he may at
the trial object to the introduction of any evidence in support of the plea of tender,
or ask that the jury be instructed to disregard the evidence of a tender, or that
instructions be given as to the consequences of the money not being in court.^'
If the money is brought in before plaintiff moves for relief the irregularity is
cured,^^ and there is held to be no waiver of the defect of failure to pay into court
by retaining the answer for the purpose of replying to the other defenses.^^
2. Time of Payment. The payment into court should generally be made
when the tender is pleaded.^" In some states, however, the matter is regulated
by statutes prescribing the time when payment into court must be made, in which
case a compliance with the statute is sufficient.^'
3. Amount to Be Paid. In keeping good a tender made before suit the tenderer
should pay into court the same amount as was tendered; ''* but where the tender
is made, after action brought, the costs of the action already incurred must be
brought into court along with the amoimt of plaintiff's demand admitted to be
due by the plea.^°
4. Medium of Payment. Where a plea is of a tender of legal tender money,
the money brought in must be a legal tender,'" although not necessarily the iden-
tical money that was tendered; °' and where money is tendered, a certificate of
51. Maine. — Gilpatrick v. Ricker, 82 Me.
185, 19 Atl. 165.
Massachusetts. — Storer v. McGaw, 11 Allen
527; Warren v. Nichols, 6 Mete. 261.
Michigan. — Wetherbee v. Kusterer, 41
Mich. 359, 2 N. W. 45.
New Hampshire. — Heywood v. Hartshorn,
65 N. H. 476.
New' Jersey. — Earle v. Earle, 16 N. J. L.
273. But see Whittaker v. Belvidere Roller-
Mill Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 674, 38 Atl. 289.
New York. — ^ Wilson v. Doran, 110 N. Y.
101, 17 N. E. 688; Smith v. Slosson, 89 Hun
568, 35 N. Y. Suppl. 547 ; Platner v. Lehman,
26 Hun 374; Roosevelt v. New York, etc.,
R. Co., 45 Barb. "554, 30 How. Pr. 226 ; Wood
V. Rabe, 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. 479; Knight v.
Beach, 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. 241; Sheriden !;.
Smith, 2 Hill 538.
Tennessee. — Rogers v. Tindall, 99 Tenn.
356, 42 S. W. 86, holding that where money
has been tendered the failure to bring it
into court is waived if the plea is not de-
murred to on that ground.
West Virginia. — Shepherd v. Wysong, 3
W. Va. 46.
52. Knox i: Light, 12 111. 86.
53. Freeman v. Fleming, 5 Iowa 460. See
also Monroe v. Chaldeck, 78 111. 429; Dunbar
V. De Boer, 44 111. App. 615.
54. Gilpatrick v. Ricker, 82 Me. 185, 19
Atl. 165; Platner v. Lehman, 26 Hun (N. Y.)
374; Knight v. Beach, 7 Abb. Pr. N. S.
(N. Y.) 241.
55. Becker v. Boon, 61 N. Y. 317; John-
son V. Gillette, 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 431, 39
N. Y. Suppl. 733. See Wilson v. Doran, 110
N. Y. 101, 17 N. E. 688, where it was held
that a failure to return the answer when it
contained several defenses was not a waiver
of the statutory notice.
56. Commercial Bank v. Crenshaw, 103
[VI, C, 1, d]
Ala. 497, 15 So. 741; Warren r. Nichols, 6
Mete. (Mass.) 261; Heywood Boot, etc., Co.
!■. Ralph, 82 Hun (N. Y.) 418, 31 N. Y.
Suppl. 263; Gilkeson v. Smith, 15 W. Va.
44.
57. See the statutes of the several states.
And see cases cited infra, this note.
In Kansas it is sufficient if deposited at
the trial or when ordered by the court. Ar-
thur V. Arthur, 38 Kan. 691, 17 Pac. 187;
G«rman-American Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 4 Kan.
App. 357, 45 Pac. 972.
In Oklahoma it is suflScient if payment be
made when ordered by the court. Gray v.
Styles, 6 Okla. 455, 49 Pac. 1083. See Dur-
ham V. liinderman, 10 Okla. 570, 64 Pac. 15.
58. Frank v. Pickens, 69 Ala. 369; Martin
t\ Bott, 17 Ind. App. 444, 46 N. E. 151;
Beaver v. Whiteley, 3 Pa. Co. Ct. 613; The
Serapis, 37 Fed. 436.
59. Illinois. — Rogers Grain Co. f. Jansen,
117 111. App. 137.
Iowa. — Warrington v. Pollard, 24 Iowa 281,
95 Am. Dec. 727.
Massachusetts. — Whipple v. Newton, 17
Pick. 168.
New York. — Retan v. Drew, 19 Wend. 304.
Ohio. — Burt v. Dodge, 13 Ohio 131.
Pennsylvania. — • Summerson v. Hicks, 142
Pa. St. 344, 21 Atl. 875; Beaver v. Whiteley,
3 Pa. Co. Ct. 613.
United States. — Lichtenfels p. The Enoa
B. Phillips, 53 Fed. 153; The Good Hope,
40 Fed. 608; The Serapis, 37 Fed. 436.
The costs of a nonsuit must be included.
Strusguth V. Pollard, 62 Vt. 157, 19 Atl. 228.
60. Shelby v. Boyd, 3 Yeates (Pa.) 321;
Downman v. Downman, 1 Wash. (Va.) 26.
61. Colby V. Stevens, 38 N. H. 191.
If a specific kind of money was offered,
the kind must be stated in the plea and a
profert made of that very money, if defend-
TENDER [38Cye.] 175
deposit for the same, payable either to the order of the clerk or to the creditor,
cannot be brought in, "^ nor a check; "^ but if a bank check was tendered, the tender
may be kept good in money, and the money, not the check, brought into court; "*
and, although the tender was in money, objection that a check instead of money was
paid into court comes too late after final decree and upon petition for rehearing/^
It is a general rule that ponderous specific articles which have been tendered
need not be brought into court; *° but it is otherwise, where the property is not
cumberous but such as a man carries about on his person, °' and where notes,
bonds, or mortgages are offered in satisfaction of a debt, the tender must be kept
good, and the tender pleaded with profert in curia and the securities brought into
court. Owing to the peculiar nature of the property the tender is held not to
be governed by the rules applicable to specific chattels, but is like a tender of
money."'
5. Notice of Payment. In some jurisdictions notice of payment into court
must be given plaintifi''s attorney,'"' and if notice is not given the plea is irregular.™
But plaintiff, by proceeding without objecting that no notice was served, waives
the irregularity,'' although the service of such notice is not waived by a failure
to return, or otherwise raise the question before trial, where the answer contains
other defenses that must be met."
6. To Whom Paid. The money must be delivered to the clerk of the court,"
and his custody is that of the court. '^ If a statute so provides payment may be
to the court itself,'^ and in a justice's court where a tender is pleaded, the money
is paid direct to the justice in open court/" If a statute directs that the
money be deposited in a bank or with a trust company, or with a constable. or
other officer, it must be deposited with the person or depositary designated."
If money, deposited with a clerk, does not become a fimd in court, by reason of
not being brought in, in support of a tender, or in compliance with an order of
the court, where such an order is necessary, the clerk does not receive it
ofiicially, but receives it, it is held, merely as the agent of the depositor,'^ and
ant desires the benefit of any subsequent de- In Missouri where, under the statute, the
preciation. Downman c. Downman, 1 Wash. money may be paid to a constable, no notice
(Va.) 26; Pong v. Lindsay, Dyer 82o, 73 is required. Crawford v. Armstrong, 58
Eng. Reprint 178. But see Jeter v. Little- Mo. App. 214. The rules governing a tender
John, 7 N. C. 186. at common law are not applicable to a tender
62. Smith v. Merchants', etc., Bank, 14 under the statute. Voss v. McGuire, 26 Mo.
Ohio Cir. Ct. 199, 8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 176. Con- App. 452.
tra, Steckel v. Standley, 107 Iowa 694, 77 70. Sheriden v. Smith, 2 Hill (N. Y.)
N. W. 489. 538.
63. Lewis v. Larson, 45 Wis. 353. 71. Wilson v. Doran, 110 N. Y. 101, 17
64. Wright V. Robinson, 84 Hun (N. Y.) N. E. 688; Platner v. Lehman, 26 Hun (N". Y.)
172, 32 N. Y. Suppl. 463. 374; Shepherd f. Wysong, 3 W. Va. 46.
65. Bradford v. Foster, 87 Tenn. 4, 9 73. Wilson v. Doran, 110 N. Y. 101, 17
S. W. 195. N. E. 688; Becker v. Boon, 61 N. Y. 317.
66. Spann v. Baltzell, 1 Fla. 301, 44 Am. 73. Walters-Gates t. Wilkinson, 92 Iowa
Dec. 346; Mitchell v. Merrill, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 129, 60 N. W. 514; Phelps v. Town, 14 Mich.
87, 18 Am. Dec. 128; Patton -c. Hunt, 64 374; Mahan v. Waters, 60 Mo. 167; Dirks
N. C. 163. V. Juel, 59 Nebr. 353, 80 N. W. 1045.
67. Harris v. Campbell, 4 Dana (Ky.) 586. A deposit of money with, an auditor on a
68. Harris ». Campbell, 4 Dana (Ky.) 586; trial before him, or with a referee, is not a
Emmons v. Myers, 7 How. (Miss.) 375; deposit in court. Becker v. Boon, 61 N. Y.
Brooklyn Bank v. De Grauw, 23 Wend. 317; Wing v. Hurlburt, 15 Vt. 607, 40 Am.
(N. Y.) 342, 35 Am. Dec. 569; Patton v. Dec. 695.
Hunt, 64 N. C. 163. 74. Currie v. Thomas, 8 Port. (Ala.) 293.
69. Wilson «. Doran, 110 N. Y. 101, 17 75. Arthur 1}. Arthur, 38 Kan. 691, 17
N. E. 688; Taylor v. Brooklyn El. R. Co., 7 Pac. 187.
N. Y. Suppl. 625 [affirmed in 119 N. Y. 76. Phelps v. Town, 14 Mich. 374.
561, 23 N. B. 1106]; Brown v. Ferguson, 2 77. Griffith v. Jackson, 45 Mo. App. 165;
Den. (N. Y.) 196; Sheriden v. Smith, 2 Kansas City Transfer Co. f. Neiswanger, 27
Hill (N. Y.) 538; Dixon v. Clark, 5 C. B. Mo. App. 356; Voss v.. McGuire, 26 Mo. App.
365, 5 D. & L. 155, 16 L. J. C. P. 237, 57 452.
E. C. L. 365. See also Platner v. Lehman, 78. Sowle v. Holdridge, 25 Ind. 119; Com-
2& Hun (N. Y.) 374. mercial Inv. Co. v. Peck, 53 Nebr. 204, 73
[VI. C, 6]
176 [38 Cye.J
TENDER
the money thus deposited may under these circumstances at any time be
withdrawn by him."
7. Effect.*" A plea of tender and bringing the money into court is an
admission of plaintiff's cause of action to the extent of the amount alleged to have
been tendered, and brought into court, and dispenses with the necessity for all
that proof which plaintiff would otherwise be required to produce in order to
recover the amount brought in,^^ and defendant cannot thereafter object to the
form of the action, '^ or that the action was prematurely brought; '^ and where
tender and payment is of the difference between plaintiff's demand and set-off,
it admits that the entire demand is due.** But tender and payment into court
does not admit liability for more than what is tendered or all alleged grounds
of recovery, and defendant may interpose any consistent defense, showing that
he is not liable in a greater sum.*'
8. Withdrawal of Money Paid in — a. By Tenderer. A party pays money
into court on a tender at his peril, *° for the money paid in belongs absolutely to
the party for whose account it is paid, and remains subject to his order, and the
tenderer cannot ordinarily withdraw it," even though the money was paid by
N. W. 452, 68 Am. St. Rep. 598; Mazyck v.
MoEwen, 2 Bailey (S. C.) 28.
79. Hammer v. Kaufman, 39 111. 87.
80. Effect of a tender and deposit of
money in court on costs see Costs, U Cyc. 71.
Effect of tender as an admission of lia-
bility generally see supra, V, C.
81. CoJorado.— Supply Ditch Co. v. El-
liott, 10 Colo. 327, 15 Pao. 691, 3 Am. St.
Eep. 586.
Illinois. — Sweetland v. Tuthill, 54 111. 215;
Cilley v. Hawkins, 48 111. 308, holding that
it admits that the amount pleaded and
brought into court is due plaintiff, although
the verdict be for less.
Iowa. — Babcock v. Harris, 37 Iowa 409;
Wright V. Howell, 35 Iowa 288.
Massachusetts. — Currier v. Jordan, 117
Mass. 260; Bacon v. Charlton, 7 Cush. 581;
Huntington li. American Bank, 6 Pick. 340.
Missouri. — Wells v. Missouri-Edison Elec-
tric Co., 108 Mo. App. 607,- 84 S. W. 204;
Voss V. McGuire, 26 Mo. App. 452.
'Nebrasha. — Murray v. Cunningham, 10
Ncbr. 167, 4 N. W. 319, 953.
Hew Yorlc. — Wilson v. Doran, 110 N. Y.
101, 17 N. E. 688; Wiener v. Auerbach, 98
N. Y. Suppl. 686; Spalding v. Vandercook,
2 Wend. 431 ; Johnston v. Columbian Ins.
Co., 7 Johns. 315.
North Carolina. — Eason l\ Sutton, 20
N. C. 622.
Ohio. — Huntington v. Ziegler, 2 Ohio St.
10.
Oregon. — Oregon R., etc., Co. v. Oregon
Real, Estate Co., 10 Oreg. 444.
Pennsylvania. — Bailey v. Bucher, 6 Watts
74.
England. — Cox v. Brain, 3 Taunt. 95.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 90.
A failure to bring money into court does
not make the admission any less distinct
and unequivocal. Roosevelt v. New York,
etc., R. Co., 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 554, 30 How.
Pr. 226. And see supra, V, C.
82. Bailey v. Bucher, 6 Watts (Pa.) 74.
83. Giboney v. German Ins. Co., 48 Mo.
App. 185.
[VI, C, 6]
84. Williamson v. Baley, 78 Mo. 636.
85. Iowa. — Griffin v. Harriman, 74 Iowa
436, 38 N. W. 139. And see Warrington r.
Pollard, 24 Iowa 281, 95 Am. Dec. 727.
Missouri. — Voss v. McGuire, 26 Mo. App.
452.
Nevada. — Clarke v. Lyon County, 7 Nev.
75.
New York. — Wilson v. Doran, 110 N. Y.
101, 17 N. E. 688; Heller v. Katz, 62 Misc.
266, 114 N. Y. Suppl. 806.
North Carolina. — Brown r. Fink, 48 N. C.
378 ; Eason v: Sutton, 20 N. C. 622.
Oregon. — Simpson v. Carson, 11 Oreg. 361,
8 Pao. 325.
United States. — Donnell v. Columbian Ins.
Co., 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,987, 2 Sumn. 366;
Snow V. Miles, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,146, 3
Cliflf. 608.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 90.
Where there are two or more counts set
out in the declaration, a deposit, without
specifying to which count the deposit is to
be applied, is an admission of a liability for
the sum deposited on some one of the counts,
but it is not an admission of a liability on
any particular count, nor of a liability on
all. Hubbard v. Knous, 7 Cush. (Mass.)
556.
86. Taylor v. Brooklyn El. R. Co., 119
N. Y. 5fil, 23 N. E. 1106, tender of amends for
a wrong.
87. Indiana. — Lvnch v. Jennings, 43 Ind.
276; Sowle v. Holdridge, 20 Ind. 204; Reed
■V. Armstrong, 18 Ind. 446; Munk v. Kanzler,
26 Ind. App. 105, 58 N. E. 543.
Missouri. — ^Griffith v. Jackson, 45 Mo.
App. 165 ; Kansas City Transfer Co. v. Neis-
wanger, 27 Mo. App. 356; Voss v. McGuire,
26 Mo. App. 452.
New Yorlc. — Halpin v. Phenix Ins. Co.,
118 N. Y. 165, 23 N. E. 482; Mela v. Geis,
3 N. Y. Civ. Proc. 152 ; Murray v. Bethune,
1 Wend. 191.
North Carolina. — Parker v. Beasley, 116
N. C. 1, 21 S. E. 955, 33 L. R. A. 231. '
Oregon. — Oregon- R., etc., Co. v. Oregon
Real Estate Co., 10 Oreg. 444.
TENDER
[38 CycJ 177
mistake,'^ except perhaps in case of fraud; *° and even if the parties proceed to
trial and it then turns out that nothing is due,°° and verdict is for the tenderer/'
it belongs to the party for whom it was paid in, absolutely, and no part of it will
be ordered repaid to defendant whatever may be the fate of the action."^ But as
the money belongs to the party for whom it is brought in, so it is at his risk,^^
unless the money tendered is deposited in such a manner that it does not become
a court fund, in which case it is at the risk of the person making the deposit,
and if lost, the loss falls upon him,"* and in such case the depositor may with-
draw the money at any time before the court has recognized it as a fund under
its control."'
b. By Tenderee. Payment into court is payment tb plaintiff; "" and it is
Pennsylvania. — Wheeler v. Woodward, 66
Pa. St. 158.
South Carolina. — Black t". Eose, 14 S. C.
274.
Wisconsin.^ Stolze v. Milwaukee, etc., R.
Co., 113 Wis. 44, 88 N. W. 919, 90 Am. St.
Eep. 833; Fox v. Williams, 92 Wis. 320, 66
N. W. 357.
United States. — Ye Seng Co. v. Corbitt,
9 Fed. 423, 7 Sawy. 368.
England. — Le Grew v. Cooke, 1 B. & P.
332; Cox V. Kobinson, Str. 1027, 93 Eng.
Eeprint 1011.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 89.
Costs paid into court to render a, witness
competent are absolutely and irrevocably
paid. Clement v. Bixler, 3 Watts (Pa.)
248
88. Phelps V. Town, 14 Mich. 374;
Vaughan v. Barnes, 2 B. & P. 392.
89. Vaughan v. Barnes, 2 B. & P. 392.
90. Eoosevelt v. New York, etc., E. Co.,
45 Barb. (N. Y.) 554, 30 How. Pr. 226.
91. Rhodes v. Andrews, (Ark. 1890) 13
S. W. 422; Taylor v. Brooklyn El. E. Co.,
119 1^. Y. 561, 23 N. E. 1106 [affirming 7
N. Y. Suppl. 625].
92. Arkansas. — Rhodes V. Andrews, (1890)
13 S. W. 422.
Illinois.— Sweetland v. Tuthill, 54 111. 215.
Missouri. — Kansas City Transfer Co. v.
Neiswanger, 27 Mo. App. 356.
New York. — Mann v. Sprout, 185 N. Y.
109, 77 N. E. 1018, 5 L. E. A. N. S. 561;
1'aylor v. Brooklyn El. E. Co., 119 N. Y. 561,
23 N. E. 1106 [affirming 7 N. Y. Suppl.
6251 ; Cass v. Higenbotam, 100 N. Y. 248, 3
N. E. 189; Becker v. Boon, 61 N. Y. 317;
Logue V. Gillick, 1 E. D. Smith 398; Heller
V. Katz, 62 Misc. 266, 114 N. Y. Suppl. 806;
Slack V. Brown, 13 Wend. 390; Murray v.
Bethune, 1 Wend. 191.
Pennsylvania. — Berkheimer v. Geise, 82
Pa. St. 64; Jenkins v. Cutchens, 2 Miles 65;
Sharpless v. Dobbins, 1 Del. Co. 25.
South Carolina. — Black v. Eose, 14 S. C.
274.
Wisconsin. — Fox v. Williams, 92 Wis. 320,
66 N. W. 357; Schnur v. Hickcox, 45 Wis.
200.
United States. — Califarno v. MacAndrews,
51 Fed. 300; Coghlan K. South Carolina E.
Co., 32 Fed. 316; The Rossend Castle, 30
Fed. 462.
England. — Fisher v. Kitchingman, Barnes
Notes 284, 94 Eng. Reprint 917; Knapton v.
[13]
Drew, Barnes Notes 279, 94 Eng. Eeprint
915; Vaughan v. Barnes, 2 B. & P. 392; Le
Grew V. Cooke, 1 B. & P. 332 ; Broadhurst v.
Baldwin, 4 Price 58.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 89.
But see Ahrens v. Fenton, 138 Iowa 559,
115 N. W. 233 (holding that. where, after
defendant's payment into the court by way
of tender, and before judgment, plaintiff's
right of action is- extinguished by a finding
of the jury that plaintiff is indebted to de-
fendant on a counter-claim to a larger
amount, plaintiff is not entitled to judgment
on the tender, and it is proper to order the
return of the money to defendant) ; Col-
trane v. Peacock, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 91
S. W. 841.
But where a statute permits defendant,
except in certain cases, to pay into court a
sum of money by way of compensation or
amends, and provides that plaintiff may then
reply by accepting the money in full satis-
faction, or allege that the money paid is
insufficient to satisfy his claim, in which
event, if the issue is found for defendant,
defendant shall be entitled to his costs, arid
plaintiff to so much of the sum paid into
court as shall be found for him, the ^effect
of a plea of tender, thereunder, is to admit
defendant's liability, limiting the issue to
the question of amount only, the money paid
into court being retained until the issue is
decided and then paid over to plaintiff to the
extent of the amount found due him. Pala-
tine Ins. Co. V. O'Brien, 107 Md. 341, 68 Atl.
484, 16 L. R. A. N. S. 1055. Under Code
Pub. Gen. Laws, art. 75, §§ 20, 21.
In equity the rule is held to be the same
as at law. Fox v. Williams, 92 Wis. 320, 66
N. W. 357; Caesar v. Capell, 83 Fed. 403.
But see Putnam v. Putnam, 13 Pick. (Mass.)
129; Dunn v. Hunt, 76 Minn. 196, 78 N. W.
1110.
93. Sowle V. Holdridge, 20 Ind. 204. See
Taylor v. Lancaster, 33 Gratt. (Va. ) 1.
Compare Larsen v. Breene, 12 Colo. 480, 21
Pac. 498, where a certified check was ten-
dered and deposited and pending the trial
the bank failed, and it was held that as an
acceptance of the check would have operated
only as a conditional payment, the loss must
be borne by the one depositing it.
94. Hammer v. Kaufman, 39 111. 87.
95. Hammer v. Kaufman, 39 111. 87.
96. Ahrens v. Fenton, 138 Iowa 559, 115
N. W. 233.
[VI, C, 8, b]
178 [38 CycJ
TENDER
generally held that money brought into court on a plea of tender in an action to
recover a debt may be withdrawn by plaintiff at any time, and the balance, if
any, recovered," although plaintiff replies that the tender was not made before
action,'* or that the amoimt is insufficient; "" but if the money is brought into
court upon a plea setting up a conditional tender, where a conditional tender
can be made, a withdrawal of the money amounts to an acceptance of the tender
as made,^ and it is sometimes held that the tender itself is conditional upon accept-
ance extinguishing the whole demand, in which case if the money is withdrawn
the balance cannot be recovered.- Withdrawing the money is a waiver of all
objections to the money.^
D. Evidence. The burden of proving a tender rests upon the party alleging
a tender,* and tenders being slridi juris, nothing being presumed in their favor,^
the evidence thereof should be full, clear, and satisfactory, so as to leave no reason-
able doubt that the one to whom it was made understood it at the time to be a
present, absolute, and unconditional tender in payment of the debt or claim."
The tenderer must prove that he was able, ready, and willing to pay; ' must prove
97. McKercher !.'. Curtis, 35 Mich. 478
(withdrawal after an appeal) ; Lackner v.
American Clothing Co., 112 N. Y. App. Div.
438, 98 N. Y. Suppl. 376; Bell v. Supreme
Council A. L. H., 42 N. Y. App. Dlv. 168, 58
N. Y. Suppl. 1049; Traynor v. White, 44
Wash. 560, 87 Pac. 823; The Eossend Castle,
30 Fed. 462; Ye Seng Co. v. Corbitt, 9 Fed.
423, 7 Sawy. 368.
Withdrawing the money is no ground for
a dismissal of an appeal (McCalley v. Otey,
103 Ala. 469, 15 So. 945), nor for a sum-
mary dismissal in the lower court (Hum-
phrey V. Merritt, 51 Ind. 197. See Higgins
f. Halligan, 46 111. 173).
98. LeGrew v. Cooke, 1 B. & P. 332.
99. Bostrom c. Gibson, 111 111. App. 457;
Murphy v. Gold, etc., Tel. Co., 3 N. Y. Suppl.
804. But see Alexander i\ Patten, 1 Fed.
Cas. No. 171, 1 Cranch C. C. 338.
1. Wells V. Robb, 9 Bush (Ky.) 26; Haeuss-
ler v. Duross, 14 Mo. App. 103.
2. Gardner i: Black, 98 Ala. 638, 12 So.
813; Hanson v. Todd, 95 Ala. 328, 10 So.
354; Turner's Sons v. Lee Gin, etc., Co., 98
Tenn. 604, 41 S. W. 57, 38 L. E. A. 549.
3. Wells V. Robb, 9 Bush (Ky.) 26.
4. McCalley v. Otey, 99 Ala. 584, 12 So.
406, 42 Am. St. Rep. 87; Park f. Wiley, 67
Ala. 310; Tuthill v. Morris, 81 N. Y. 94;
North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Adams, 54 Pa.
St. 94, 93 Am. Dec. 677; Richardson v. Baker,
52 Vt. 617.
Evidence of another tender is inadmissible.
Redhead v. Wyoming Cattle Inv. Co., 126
Iowa 410, 102 N. W. 144.
Evidence of an excuse for not making
tender will not support a plea of tender.
Sharp v. Colgan, 4 Mo. 29.
A waiver of a tender cannot be established
by requiring defendant to state whether, if
made, he would have received it. Bluntzer
V. Dewees, 79 Tex. 272, 15 S. W. 29. But
evidence of a waiver of tender has been held
competent to support a plea of tender.
Holmes v. Holmes, 9 N. Y. 525. And see
Woolner v. Hill, 93 N. Y. 576. _ .
Parol evidence of a tender in a justice's
court, made for the purpose of charging
plaintiff with costs, is inadmissible. The
[VI, C, 8, b]
tender must be proven by the record. Sei-
bert V. Kline, 1 Pa. St. 38.
5. King V. Finch, 60 Ind. 420 ; Shotwell v.
Dennman, 1 N. J. L. 202.
6. Alabama. — Butler v. Hannah, 103 Ala.
481, 15 So. 641.
Georgia.— Hudson f. Goff, 77 Ga. 281, 3
S. K 152, holding that evidence that the
party furnished money to his attorney with
^^■hich to make a tender is not of itself proof
that a tender was made.
Illinois. — Pulsifer v. Shepard, 36 111. 513.
Michigan. — Adams c. Greig, 126 Mich. 582,
85 N. W. 1078 ; Engle v. Hall, 45 Mich. 57, 7
N. W. 230; Proctor v. Robinson, 35 Mich.
284; Potts V. Plaisted, 30 Mich. 149.
Minnesota. — Davies r. Dow, 80 Minn. 223,
83 N. W. 50; Benson Bank v. Hove, 45 ;Minn.
40, 47 N. W. 449.
New Jersey. — Arrowsmith r. Van Harlin-
gen, 1 N. J. L. 29.
United Stotes.^ McCormiek v. Lilienthal,
117 Fed. 89, 54 C. C. A. 475.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. " Tender," § 96 et seq.
Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is not
required. Kerney v. Gardner, 27 111. 162.
7. Pulsifer v. Shepard, 36 111. 513; Otis
i: Barton, 10 N. H. 433.
Where no money was produced, but the
debtor informed the creditor that he then
had the money ready to pay, it was held
error to exclude evidence that the debtor
had the money with him ready to pay. Pin-
ney l'. Jorgenson, 27 Minn. 26, 6 N. W. 376.
Evidence that the debtor is financially
able to pay is not sufficient. See Hawley i".
Mason, 9 Dana (Ky.) 32, 33 Am. Dec. 522.
Evidence that the debtor had at the time
money on deposit in a bank is not good.
Myers v. Byington, 34 Iowa 205.
Evidence that a third party would have
loaned the money for the purpose of the
tender is insufficient, unless it be also proven
that the third party was present with the
money and said he would let the debtor have
it for that purpose. Sargent v. Graham, 5
N. H. 440, 22 Am. Dec. 469; Harding v.
Davis, 2 C. & P. 77, 31 Rev. Rep. 654, 12
E. C. L. 460.
TENDER
[38 Cyc] 179
the time where the tender was made/ and, if money was tendered, the debtor
must show that he had the exact amount or more at hand," and the kind of money
tendered," and that the tenderee had authority to accept the tender," and the
burden of proof is upon the person alleging a tender to show that he has kept the
tender good.'^ If chattels were tendered, the debtor or vendor must show that
he was ready with them at the time and place of delivery, and that they were
set apart or otherwise designated,''' and that they were of the kind in which the
debt was payable." An actual offer must be proven and not a mere proposition
to pay,'' and a refusal by the creditor must be shown."
E. Trial. Where the facts are in dispute, it is for the jury to say whether
a tender was made," or waived,'* or made to the wrong person,'" or whether the
sum tendered was in full satisfaction and received on those terms,^" or was made
to buy peace,^' and, generally, the question as to whether a tender was made
conditionally is for the jury.^^ But the question whether the money has been
brought into |court is for the court to determine as an act done in its presence
and shown by the records,^^ and where the facts bearing upon a question of tender
That a statute authorized the tender to
be made in writing does not change the rule.
Ladd V. Mason, 10 Oreg. 308.
A refusal to receive the money does not
dispense with the necessity of showing an
existing ability to make payment by having
the money within convenient reach. Wyn-
koop V. Cowing, 21 111. 570.
If a tender was made by a bank check it
must be proven that the tenderer had suffi-
cient funds on deposit to meet it. Poague
V. Greenlee, 22 Graft. (Va.) 724.
8. Braumann %. Vanderpoel, 26 Misc.
(N. Y.) 786, 56 N. Y. Suppl. 216.
9. Benson Bank f. Hove, 45 Minn. 40, 47
N. W. 449. See Appleton t. Donaldson, 3
Pa. St. 381.
Particularity as to amount. — Proof of a
tender of £20, 9s., 6d., in bank-notes and
silver has been held sufficient to support a
plea of tender of £20. Dean t. James, 4
B. & Aid. 547, 2 L. J. K. B. 94, I N. & M.
303, 24 E. C. L. 241, 110 Eng. Reprint 561.
But a plea of tender of £16 will not be sup-
ported by proof of a tender of £15, 16g., al-
though no more than the latter sum was
due. John r. Jenkins, 1 Cromp. & M. 227,
2 L. J. Exch. 83, 3 Tyrw. 170.
10. Koehler v. Buehl, 94 Mich. 496, 54
N. W. 157.
Evidence of a tender of a note due from
plaintiff to defendant will not support a
plea of a tender of money. Gary v. Ban-
croft, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 315, 25 Am. Dec. 393.
11. Stevens f. Taylor, (Tex. Civ. App.
1907) 102 S. W. 791.
13. McCalley v. Otey, 99 Ala. 584, 12 So.
406, 42 Am. St. Eep. 87; Long ■;;. Howard,
35 Iowa 148.
13. Hambel f. Tower, 14 Iowa 530; Burns
K. Welch, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.) 117.
If a note of a third party was tendered,
the proof must show that it was indorsed
according to agreement, or in absence of an
agreement that it was indorsed so as to
transfer title. See Eichholtz c. Taylor, 88
Ind. 38.
If the statute requires goods to be in-
spected, surveyed, or gaged, that the statute
was complied with must be shown. Jones
%. Knowles, 30 Me. 402.
14. Hawley t. Mason, 9 Dana (Ky.) 32,
33 Am. Dec. 522.
15. Shotwell ;;. Dennman, 1 N. J. L. 202.
16. Adams v. Greig, 126 Mich. 582, 85
N. W. 1078.
The declaration of the party, made at the
time of the tender, is inadmissible to go
to the jury. Mahone v. Beeves, 11 Ala.
345.
An entry of an offer and refusal in a day-
book kept for the purpose of entering daily
transactions, made by a clerk of plaintiff's
attorney, since deceased, is admissible in
evidence to prove a tender. Marks f. Lahee,
3 Bing. N. Cas. 408, 6 L. J. C. P. 69, 4 Scott
137, 32 E. C. L. 193.
17. Nodow !;.• Porter, 122 Mich. 456. 81
N. W. 256: Howell v. Listowell Rink, etc.,
Co., 13 Ont. 476.
18. Wheelden K. Lowell, 50 Me. 499;
Schayer v. Commonwealth Loan Co., 163
Mass. 322, 39 N. E. 1110; Guthman f. Kearn,
8 Nebr. 502, I N. W. 129.
Whether a tender of the full amount was
■waived is for the jury. Nelson !;. Robson, 17
Minn. 284.
19. Wilson f. Doran, 110 N. Y. 101, 17
N. E. 688.
20. Jenks v. Burr, 56 111. 450.
21. Nye v. Chase, 50 Vt. 306.
22. Eckstein v. Reynolds, 7 A. & E. 80, 6
L. J. K. B. 198, 2 N. & P. 256, 34 E. C. L.
66, 112 Eng. Reprint 401; Marsden f. Goode,
2 C. & K. 133, 61 E. C. L. 133.
23. Knox v. Light, 12 111. 86; Gilpatrick
V. Eicker, 82 Me. 185, 19 Atl. 165; Neldon
t. Roof, 55 N. J. Eq. 608, 38 Atl. 429.
Where the tender is made under a statute
by depositing the money in court the court
will inform itself whether the money has been
brought in without the aid of a jury. New-
ton f. Ellis, 16 Wis. 197.
A failure to find that the tender had been
kept good has been held to be immaterial
when the money tendered has been brought
into court. Anderson v. Moore, 145 111. 61,
33 N. E. 848.
[VI, E.]
180 [38 Cye.j
TENDER — TENEMENT
are uncontroverted, the question whether a tender has been made is purely a
question of law.^*
F. Judgment. If after money has been brought into court on a tender,
plaintiff elects to take the money tendered, the money will be ordered paid over
to him and a judgment entered dismissing the action.^^ So if plaintiff takes issue
on the plea of tender and fails to prove any more to be due than the sum tendered
and brought into court such tender bars the right to a judgment for plaintiff
for the amount tendered. Defendant is entitled to a judgment and plaintiff to
the sum paid in.^^ If plaintiff proves liability for more than the amount tendered,
he may have judgment for the balance or for the whole amount, the amount
tendered being credited as a payment on the judgment.^'
Tender, in reference to railroads, the small car carrying water and fuel
for the engine, and to which the first passenger or freight car of the train is usually
coupled.' (Tender: In Law, see Tender, ante, p. 127.)
Ten dollar bill, a bank-bill of the denomination of ten dollars, or a
treasury note of the same denomination.^ (See Bank-Bill, 5 Cyc. 226.)
Tenement. In modem use, a term signifying rooms let in houses, or such
part of a house as is separately occupied by a single family or person, in contra-
distinction from the whole house.^ (Tenement: As Dwelling, see Arson, 3 Cyc.
24. Wheelock f. Tanner, 39 N. Y. 481.
2.5. Monroe u. Chaldeck, 78 111. 429; Grif-
fitlis 1-. Ystradyfodwg School Bd., 24 Q. B. D.
307, 59 L. J. Q. B. 116, 62 L. T. Eep. N. S.
151, 38 Wkly. Rep. 425.
26. Alabama. — Syaon r. Hieronymus, 127
Ala. 482, 28 So. 967; Foster v. Napier, 74
Ala. 393.
Colorado. — Supply Ditch Co. v. Elliott, 10
Colo. 327, 15 Pao. 691, 3 Am. St. Rep. 586.
Illinois. — Leonard v. Ration, 106 111. 99;
Cilley f. Hawkins, 48 111. 308.
Indiana. — Reed v. Armstrong, 18 Ind. 446.
Iowa. — In Wright v. Howfell, 35 Iowa 288
(plaintiff averred a tender of four hundred
dollars, but upon the trial a balance was
found to be due from defendant and a judg-
ment against defendant was held erroneous) ;
Warrington v. Pollard, 24 Iowa 281, 95 Am.
Dec. 727. But see Gray v. Graham, 34 Iowa
425.
Kansas. — Elder v. Elder, 43 Kan. 614, 23
Pac. 600.
Michigan. — Wetherbee !;. Kusterer,
Mich. 359, 2 N. W. 45.
Mississippi. — Memphis Mach. Works
Aberdeen, 77 Miss. 420, 27 So. 608.
New York. — Wilson v. Doran, 39 Hun 88 ;
Cleveland !;. Tobey, 36 Misc. 319, 73 N. Y.
Suppl. 544; Fallon v. Farber, 30 Misc. 626,
62 N. Y. Suppl. 742 ; Cagliostro v. Corporale,
26 Misc. 818, 56 N. Y. Suppl. 1027; Dakin
V. Dunning, 7 Hill 30, 42 Am. Dec. 33.
North Carolina. — Pollock v. Warwick,
N. C. 638, 10 S. E. 699.
Ohio. — Foote v. Palmer, Wright 336.
Fuller V. Pelton, 16 Ohio 457.
Pennsylvania. — Cornell v. Green, 10 Serg.
& E. 14; Sheehan f. Rosen, 12 Pa. Super. Ct.
298; Beaver v. Whiteley, 3 Pa. Co. Ct. 613;
Sharpless t. Dobbins, 1 Del. Co. 25.
South Carolina. — Shiel v. Randolph, 4 Mc-
Cord 146.
England. — Smith v. Vale, 2 Esp. 607 ;
[VI, E]
41
V.
104
See
Elliot V. Callow, 2 Salk. 597, 91 Eng. Re-
print 506.
27. Georgia. — Bennett v. Odom, 30 Ga.
940.
Illinois. — Dickinson f. Boyd, 82 111. App.
251.
Indiana. — Barnes v. Bates, 28 Ind. 15;
Reed v. Armstrong, 18 Ind. 446; Martin v.
Bott, 17 Ind. App. 444, 46 N. E. 151.
Iowa. — Ahrens v. Fenton, 138 Iowa 559,
115 N. W. 233.
Maine. — Call v. Lothrop, 39 Me. 434;
Dresser v. Wither le, 9 Me. 111.
New Jersey. — New Brunswick State Bank
V. Holcomb, 7 N. J. L. 193, 11 Am. Dec. 549.
New York. — Goldstein v. Stern, 9 N. Y.
Suppl. 274; Murphy v. Gold, etc., Tel. Co.,
3 N. Y. Suppl. 804; Dakin f. Dunning, 7
Hill 30, 42 Am. Dec. 33.
Texas. — Erie Tel., etc., Co. v. Grimes, 82
Tex. 89, 17 S. W. 831.
Washington. — Traynor v. White, 44 Wash.
560, 87 Pac. 823.
Wisconsin. — Lewis v. Larson, 45 Wis. 353;
Schnur v. Hickcox, 45 Wis. 200.
See 45 Cent. Dig. tit. "Tender," § 91.
A finding for a less sum than the amount
paid in imports a finding against the tender.
Berkheimer i. Geise, 82 Pa. St. 64.
1. Winkler v. Philadelphia, etc., E. Co.,
4 Penn. (Del.) 80, 86, 53 Atl. 90.
2. State V. Freeman, 89 N. C. 469, 472.
3. Com. V. Hersey, 144 Mass. 297, 298, 11
N. E. 116. See also Young v. Boston, 104
Mass. 95, 104; Nicholls v. Malim, [1906]
1 K. B. 272, 277, 75 L. J. K. B. 140, 94 L. T.
Rep. N. S. 161, 54 Wkly. Rep. 404.
The term is applicable, both in public and
legal usage, to the parts of a building leased
without the land upon which the building
stands, as well as to an entire building.
Miller v. Benton, 55 Conn. 529, 544, 13 Atl.
678; Taylor v. Hart, 73 Miss. 22, 30, 18 So.
546, 30 L. R. A. 716.
TENEMENT— TENEMENT-HOUSE [38 Cyc] 181
987 note 23. Building Regulations as Denial of Equal Protection of Law, see
Constitutional Law, 8 Cyc. 1062. Municipal Building Regulations, see Munic-
ipal CoEPORATiONS, 28 Cyc. 736. Restrictive Covenants Against Building, see
Covenants, 11 Cyc. 1078 note 73.)
TENEMENT FACTORY. As defined by the English Factory and Workshop
Actof 1901, a factory where mechanical power is supplied to different parts of
the same building occupied by different persons for the purpose of any manu-
facturing process or handicraft, in such manner that those parts constitute in
law separate factories.*
TENEMENT-HOUSE. A community-house occupied by persons of small
means, the distinguishing characteristics of which are the use in common of certain
facilities by people crowded into insufficient space and deprived of many of the
essentials of privacy, decency, and health ; ^ a house with distinct tenements or
homes, which separate different families or persons occupy as tenants ; * a building
having tenements occupied by poor families ; ' a building, the different rooms or
parts of which are let for residence purposes by the possessor to others, as distinct
tenements, so that each tenant, as to the room or rooms occupied by him, would
sustain to the common landlord the same relation that the tenant occupying a
whole house would to his landlord ; * a house or block of buildings divided into
dwellings occupied by separate families ; " often in modern usage, an inferior
dwelling-house rented to poor persons, or a dwelling erected for the purpose of
being rented.'"
" It may consist of a single room or of
contiguous rooms, or of rooms upon different
stories, if such rooms are controlled by a
single person and are used in connection with
each other. The fact (if it were so) that
one of the rooms was occupied and used as
a shop, and another for a living room or
kitchen, by the same person, would not make
these rooms distinct tenements." Com. v.
Clynes, 150 Mass. 71, 72, 22 N. E. 436.
Tenement for unlawful sale of intoxicat-
ing liquors see Intoxicating Liquoes, 23
Cyc. 177 text and note 92.
For other definitions of the term see Pkop-
ERTY, 32 Cyc. 658.
4. Brass v. London County Council, [1904]
2 K. B. 336, 339, 68 J. P. 365, 73 L. J. K. B.
841, 2 Loc. Gov. 809, 91 L. T. Eep. N. S.
344, 20 T. L. R. 464, 53 Wkly. Eep. 27. See
also Toller v. Spiers, [1903] 1 Ch. 362, 368,
67 J. P. 234, 72 L. J. Ch. 191, 1 Loc. Gov.
193, 87 L. T. Rep. N. S. 578, 19 T. L. E. 119,
51 Wkly. Rep. 330.
5. Lignot V. Jaekle, 72 N. J. Eq. 233, 238,
65 Atl. 221, where such was held to be the
meaning of the term in a covenant against
the erection of a " tenement-house." See also
Kitching V. Brown, 180 N. Y. 414, 73 N. B.
241, 70 L. E. A. 742.
6. Musgrave v. Sherwood, 63 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 311, 315.
" Boarding-house " and " hotel " distin-
guished see Musgrave v. Sherwood, 54 How.
Pr. (N. Y.) 338, 358.
7. Kitchings v. Brown, 37 Misc. (N. Y.)
439, 441, 75 N. Y. Suppl. 768 {citing Wor-
cester Diet.].
Apartment house distinguished see Kitch-
ings V. Brown, 92 N. Y. App. Div. 160, 162,
87 N. Y. Suppl. 75 {affirming 37 Misc. 439,
75 N. Y. Suppl. 768] ; White v. Collins Bldg.,
etc., Co., 82 N. Y. App. Div. 1, 4, 81 N. Y.
Suppl. 434, holding that a covenant not to
erect a tenement-house on premises is not
violated by the erection thereon of an '" apart-
ment house."
"Tenement houses . . . commonly speaking
are the poorest class of apartment-houses,
they are generally poorly built, without suffi-
cient accommodations for light and ventila-
tion, and are overcrowded; the middle rooms
often receive no daylight, and it is no un-
common thing for several families to be
crowded into one of those dark and unwhole-
some rooms. Bad air, want of sunlight, and
filthy surroundings work the physical ruin
of the wretched tenants, while their mental
and moral condition is equally lowered. At-
tempts to reform the evils of tenement life
have been going on for some time in many
of the great cities of the world." Inter-
national CyclopsEdia [quoted in Kitchings
V. Brown, 37 Mise. (N. Y.) 439, 441, 75
N. Y. Suppl. 768].
8. Linwood Park Co. v. Van Dusen, 63
Ohio St. 183, 200, 68 N. E. 576; Rose v.
King, 49 Ohio St. 213, 227, 30 N. E. 267, 15
L. E. A. 160,
A four-story building, occupied by three
families living in separate apartments on
the second floor, and by two families living
in separate apartments on the third floor,
numbering sixteen persons, all tenants of
one owner, is a tenement-house within the
meaning of a statute making it the duty of
any owner of any tenement-house to provide
a convenient exit therefrom in case of fire.
Rose r. King, 49 Ohio St. 213, 227, 30 N. E.
267, 15 L. R. A. 160.
9. Century Diet, [quoted in Rose v. King, 49
Ohio St. 213, 227, 30 N. E. 267, 15 L. E. A. 160].
10. Webster Diet, [quoted in Boyd v. Ker-
win, 15 N. Y. SuppL 721; Musgrave v. Sher-
wood, 54 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 338, 358]. See
also Kitchings v. Brown, 37 Misc. (N. Y.)
439, 441, 75 N. Y. Suppl. 768.
182 [38 Cyc]
TENEMENTUM — TENOR
TENEMENTUM. a term in the statute de doni& which has been construed to
extend to everything savoring of the realty."
Tenendum. Literally, " to hold; to be holden." The name of that formal
part of a deed which is characterized by the words " to hold." " (See Deeds,
13 Cyc. 551.)
Tenens domino debita servitia tenetur, et dominus invicem
TENENTI PROTECTIONEM ET JURA SUA OMNIA. A maxim meaning " A tenant
is bound to pay rent to his landlord, and the landlord to protect the tenant in all
his rights under him." ^^
TENENS NIL FACERE POTEST, PROPTER OBLIGATIONEM HOMAGII QUOD
VERTATUR DOMINO AD EXH^EREDATIONEM. A maxim meaning " A tenant,
by force of the obUgation by which he takes his title, can do no act which may
operate to disinherit his landlord." ^*
TENET; TENUIT. Literally, " he holds; he held." i=
TENN. The well-known and almost universal abbreviation for the name of
the state of Tennessee.'"
TENNESSEE MONEY. The notes of banks issued under the authority of
Tennessee."
Tenon. To cut or fit for the insertion of a mortise."
Tenor. An exact copy of an instrument; " an exact copy of a writing, set
forth in the words and figures of it.^° (Tenor: Pleading Defamatory Matter in
Statutory definition see Grimmer t. Tene-
ment House Department, 134 N. Y. App. Div.
896, 898, 119 N. Y. Suppl. 812; White f
Collins Bldg., etc., Co., 82 N. Y. App. Div.
1, 6, 81 N. Y. Suppl. 434; Kitchings v.
Brown, 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 439, 440, 75 N. Y.
Suppl. 768.
11. Blackwell t. Wilkinson, JeflF. (Va.) 73,
79.
12. Black L. Diet.
13. Morgan Leg. Max. Iciting Halkerstone
Leg. Max.].
14. Morgan Leg. Max. \eitmg Coke Litt.
65].
15. Black L. Diet., adding: " In the Latin
forms of the writ of waste against a tenant,
these words introduced the allegation of
tenure. If the tenancy still existed, and re-
covery of the land was sought, the former
word was used, (and the writ was said to
be ' in the tenet.'') If the tenancy had al-
ready determined the latter term was used,
(the writ being described as ' in the tenuit')
and then damages only were sought."
" The word ' tenet ' in a writ always im-
plies a tenant of the freehold." McKee v.
Straub, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 1, 3.
16. Elliott f. Jordan, 7 Baxt. (Tenn.) 376,
378.
17. Taylor v. Neblett, 4 Heisk. (Tenn.)
491, 494. But see Searcy f. Vance, Mart.
& Y. (Tenn.) 225, where it is said: "Noth-
ing but gold or silver constitutes Tennessee
money."
" Tenessee bank notes " compared and
distinguished see Taylor r. Neblett, 4 Heisk.
(Tenn.) 491, 494; Searcy f. Vance, Mart.
& Y. (Tenn.) 225, 226; Gamble r. Hatton,
Peck (Tenn.) 130.
18. Webster New Int. Diet. See Sarven
f. Hall, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,370, 11 Blatchf.
295, 300, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 495, also defining
" tenoned."
19. Thomas v. State, 103 Ind. 419, 426,
2 N. E. 808; State v. Chinn, 142 Mo. 507,
512, 44 S. W. 245; State v. Pullens, 81 Mo.
387, 392; State f. Page, 19 Mo. 213, 217;
Fogg 1-. State, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 392, 394.
20. Bouvier L. Diet, [quoted in St. Law-
rence Tp. %. Furman, 171 Fed. 400, 402, 96
C. C. A. 356]; Webster Diet, [quoted in
Miller v. State, (Tex. Cr. App. 1896) 34
S. W. 267, 268].
Imports identity. — State v. Townsend, 86
N. C. 676, 679.
Imports an exact copy. — Teague v. State,
86 Ark. 126, 129, 110 S. W. 224; McDonnell
V. State, 58 Ark. 242, 248, 24 S. W. 105
[citing Webster Diet.; Maxwell Cr. Proe.] ;
People V. Tilden, 242 111. 536, 538, 90 N. E.
218, 134 Am. St. Eep. 341 ; State v. Atkins, 5
Blackf. (Ind.) 458; Com. v. Wright, 1 Cush.
(Mass.) 46, 65; State v. Fenly, 18 Mo. 445,
454 [citing 3 Chitty Cr. L. 1040].
Common and usual signification said to
require only a statement of the import or
substance of the instrument, as distinguished
from the technical signification. Beeson r.
Beeson, 1 Harr. (Del.) 466, 472.
Distinguished from: "Purport" see State
V. Atkins, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 458; State' v.
Callendine, 8 Iowa 288, 296 ; Com. v. Wright,
1 Cush. (Mass.) 46, 65; State v. Chinn, 142
Mo. 507, 512, 44 S. W. 245; State v. Pullens,
81 Mo. 387, 392; State i\ Fenly, 18 Mo. 445,
454; Dana v. State, 2 Ohio St. 91, 94; Fogg
r. State, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 392, 394; St. Law-
rence Tp. V. Furman, 171 Fed. 400, 402, 96
C. C. A. 356. "Purport and effect" see
Teague v. State, 8fi Ark. 126, 129, 110 S. W.
224; State t. Bonney, 34 Me. 383, 384. " Sub-
stance " see Solomon v. Lawson, 8 Q. B. 823,
839, 10 Jur. 796, 15 L. J. Q. B. 253, 55
E. C. L. 823; Wright i\ Clements, 3 B. &
Aid. 503, 506, 22 Rev. Rep. 465, 5 E. C. L,
292, 106 Eng. Reprint 746. " Substantially "
TENOR — TEN UEE
[38 Cyc] 183
Action For Libel or Slander, see Libel and Slander, 25 Cyc. 447. Pleading
Written Instrument In Hsec Verba, see Pleading, 31 Cyc. 65. Setting Out
Writing in Indictment — In General, see Indictments and Informations,
' 22 Cyc. 354 ; For Criminal Libel, see Libel and Slander, 25 Cyc. 577 ; For Forgery,
see Forgery, 19 Cyc. 1397.)
Tenor est pactio contra communem feudi naturam ac rationem,
IN CONTRACTU INTERPOSITA. A maxim meaning " Tenure is a compact con-
trary to the common nature and reason of the fee, put into a contract." ^'
Tenor est qui legem DAT FEUDO. a maxim meaning " It is the tenor
of the feudal grant which regulates its effect and extent." ^^
Tenor INVESTITURiE est INSPICIENDUS. A maxim meaning " The tenor
of an investiture is to be scrutinized." ^^
Tent. In the ordinary acceptation of the word, a pavilion, portable lodge,
or canvas house, enclosed with walls of cloth and covered with the same material.^*
(Tent: Right of City to Prohibit Erection Within Fire Limits, see Municipal
Corporations, 28 Cyc. 742 note 89.)
Tentative trust. A suggested or proposed trust, not completed or con-
summated.^^ (See Trusts.)
TENTERDEN'S act. The statute of 9 Geo. IV, c. 14, taking its name from
Lord Tenterden, which is an extension of the statute of frauds.^* (See Frauds,
Statute of, 20 Cyc. 195.)
Tenure.^' In its technical sense, the manner whereby lands or tenements
are holden, or the service that the tenant owes to his lord ; ^* the estate in the
land; ^° the mode by which one holds an estate in land.'" (Tenure: Of Office, see
Cross-References Under Teem, 'post, p. 184. Of Ownership of Property, see
Cross-References Under Title, ^ost, p. 336.)
see Edgerton v. State, (Tex. Cr. App. 1902)
70 S. W. 90, 91.
As used in pleadings alleging that the in-
struments are set out according to tlieir
tenor the term binds a party to a strict re-
cital. Com. V. Stevens, 1 Mass. 203, 204.
"Tenor of the bill" used in reference to
a bill of exchange relates merely to the time
and manner of payment. Lindley v. Water-
loo First Nat. Bank, 76 Iowa 629, 631, 41
N. W. 381, 2 L. E. A. 709, 14 Am. St. Eep.
254.
" The tenor of the will " means its purport
and effect, as opposed to the exact words
thereof. Jones v. Casler, 139 Ind. 382, 390,
38 N. E. 812, 47 Am. St. Eep. 274 Iciting
Thornton L. Lost Wills 147].
21. Peloubet Leg. Max. [citing Wright
Tenures 21].
22. Black L. Diet, [citing Broom Leg.
Max.].
23. Morgan Leg. Max. [citing Wright Ten-
ures].
24. Killman v. State, 2 Tex. App. 222, 224,
28 Am. Eep. 432.
Held to be a building within the meaning
of a restriction in a deed against the erection
of buildings other than dwellings to cost a
specified sum see Blakemore v. Stanley, 159
Mass. 6, 7, 33 N. E. 689.
"House" distinguished see Callahan v.
State, 41 Tex. 43, 45.
25. Matter of U. S. Trust Co., 117 N. Y.
App. Div. 178. 180, 102 N. Y. Suppl. 271.
26. Black L. Diet.
27. Derived from the Latin tenere — to
•hold. State v. Harrison, 113 Ind. 434, 446,
16 N. E. 384, 3 Am. St. Eep. 663.
28. Bard r. Grundy, Ky. Dec. 168, 169.
29. Bard v. Grundy, Ky. Dee. 168, 169.
30. Bothin v. California Title Ins., etc.,
Co., 153 Cal. 718, 722, 96 Pac. 500 [citing
Anderson L. Diet.; Bouvier L. Diet.], where
it is said that while such is the meaning of
the term, it imports any kind of holding
from mere possession to the owning of the
inheritance.
" The most common tenure by which lands
are held in this country is ' fee simple,' which
is an absolute tenure of land to a man and
his heirs forever without rendering service of
any kind." Bard v. Grundy, Ky. Dec. 168,
169.
A term of very extensive signification;
which may import a mere possession, and
may include every holding of an inheritance.
Eichman v. Lippincott, 29 N. J. L. 44,
69.
"Tenure of his patent" see Bard v.
Grundy, Ky. Dec. 168, 169.
In reference to office the term has been
construed to include the duration of the term
of office, in addition to the manner of hold-
ing. People V. Waite, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 58.
See also People v. Bissell, 49 Cal. 407, 412
[quoted in Territory v. Ashenfelter, 4 N. M.
85, 103, 12 Pac. 879], where the word is con-
strued as meaning " term."
A constitutional provision that "the Gen-
eral Assembly shall not create any office the
'tenure' of which shall be longer than four
years" does not prevent one who holds an
office created by the general assembly the
term of which is four years, from holding
over after the expiration of his term, until
the successor be elected and qualified. State
v. Harrison, 113 Ind. 434, 446, 16 N. B, 384,
3 Am. St. Eep. 663.
184 [38 Cye.j
TERGERONES— TERR
TERCERONES. In the Spanish and French West Indies, the production of a
white person and a mulatto.^' (See Colored Persons, 7 Cyc. 400; Mulatto,
29 Cyc. 51; Negro, 29 Cyc. 661; Quadroon, 32 Cyc. 1276; Quinterones, 32 Cyc.
1395.)
Term or TERMS.^^ In its general signification, words, phrases, and expres-
sions by which the definite meaning of language is conveyed and determined; ^
in the plural form, in its restricted and legal sense, and as used chiefly in reference
to contracts, the conditions, limitations, and propositions which comprise and
govern the acts which the contracting parties agree expressly or impliedly to do
or not to do ; ^* conditions, propositions stated, or provisions made, which when
assented to or accepted by another, settle the contract and bind the parties ; ^
conditions; propositions; stipulations.^" As applied to time, a fixed period, a
determined or prescribed duration ; ^' the time for which anything lasts ; any
limited time.^' In reference to tenancies, the duration or extent of- the interest
31. Daniel r. Guy, 19 Ark. 121, 131.
32. Derived from the Latin terminus, a
limit or boundary. Hurd v. Whitsett, 4
Colo. 77, 89.
The word is susceptible of a very varied
signification dependent on the subject-matter
spoken of where, or in the sentence in which,
it is used. Hutchinson v. Lord, 1 Wis. 286,
313, 60 Am. Dec. 381. See also Pilcher v.
English, 133 Ga. 496, 502, 66 S. E. 163.
" Term " and " terms " distinguished see
Hurd L-. Whitsett, 4 Colo. 77, 89.
33. Hurd i: "\A'hitsett, 4 Colo. 77, 84.
34. Hurd v. Whitsett, 4 Colo. 77, 84.
" In its legal signification, as applied to
any instrument, it is generally employed to
state a result or conclusion, and not the con-
dition or stipulation. For example, it is
frequently found in points, arguments, and
plead.ings, thus: the agreement, though it
does not expressly, yet in terms it does, etc.;
thus giving the effect of all its provisions."
Walsh f. Mehrbaek, 5 Hun (N. Y.) 448, 449.
As employed in respect to leases the word
embraces the covenants and conditions which
impose, confer and limit the respective obli-
gations and rights of the landlord and ten-
ant during the continuance of the tenancy;
such as the extent and manner of the use of-
the premises; quiet enjoyment; rent and its
amount, mode and time of payment; re-
pairs; payment of taxes, and the like ex-
press or implied agreements. Hurd v. Whit-
sett, 4 Colo. 77, 84.
35. Hutchinson v. Lord, 1 Wis. 286, 313,
60 Am. Dee. 381. See also Walsh y. Mehr-
baek, 5 Hun (N. Y.) 448, 449; Ceranto v.
Trimboli, 63 W. Va. 340, 343, 60 S. E. 138.
" Used in the civil law to denote ' the
space of time granted to the debtor for dis-
charging his obligation;' these are express
terms resulting from the positive stipula-
tions of the agreement, as 'where one under-
takes to pay a certain sum on a certain day,'
and also terms which tacitly result from the
nature of the things which are the object of
the engagement, or from the place where the
act is agreed to be done. For instance, if a
builder engage to construct a house for me,
I must allow a reasonable time for fulfilling
his engagement." Bouvier L. Diet, [quoted
in Hutchinson v. Lord, 1 Wis. 286, 313, 60
Am. Dec. 381].
36. Worcester Diet, [quoted in Platter v.
Elkhart County, 103 Ind. 360, 378, 2 X. E.
544].
Construed as meaning " compensation " in
an act of appropriation reciting that the rail-
road company " having attempted and failed,
and being unable to agree with the responds
ent in regard to the terms of, or in regard
to the compensation therefor " see Lake
Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Cincinnati, etc., E. Co.,
116 Ind. 578, 587, 19 N. E. 440.
Held to include " rates or charges " as used
in a statute providing that a person or cor-
poration operating a railroad shall give to
all persons reasonable and equal terms, bene-
fits, etc., see State v. Central Vermont R.
Co., 81 Vt. 463, 467, 71 Atl. 194, 130 Am. St.
Rep. 1065.
Imposing a reasonable limitation in time
for the completion of the work, is within the
meaning of the word as used in a statute
providing that when the people have voted
a subscription in aid of a railroad, the county
court shall make it " on such terms as they
may deem advisable." West Virginia, etc.,
R. Co. V. Harrison County Ct., 47 W. Va.
273, 279, 34 S. E. 786.
" On terms the most advantageous to the
public" see People i: Carr, 5 Silv. Sup.
(N. Y.) 302, 303, 23 N. Y. Suppl. 112.
" Terms and condition " see O'Brien v. Mof-
fitt, 133 Ind. 660, 669, 33 N. E. 616, 36 Am.
St. Rep. 566; Rokes f. Amazon Ins. Co., 51
Md. 512, 519, 34 Am. Rep. 323; State r. Faw-
cett, 58 Nebr. 371, 376, 78 N. W. 636; Eureka
Elastic Paint Co. t. Bennett-Hedgpeth Co.,
85 S. C. 486, 488, 67 S. E. 738.
" T^rms cash " see Lawder, etc., Co. i\
Albert Mackie Grocery Co., 97 Md. 1, 10, 54
Atl. 634, 62 L. R. A. 795; George v. Joy, 19
N. H. 544, 546 ; Wellauer r. Fellows, 48 Wis.
105, 109, 4 N. W. 114; Nelson v. Patrick,
2 C. & K. 641, 643, 61 E. C. L. 641.
" Terms of attachment " see Casey v.
Holmes, 10 Ala. 776, 789.
"Terms of sale" see Platter v. Elkhart
County, 103 Ind. 360, 378, 2 N. E. 544.
37. State v. Tallman, 24 Wash. 426, 430,
64 Pac. 759; State v. Twichell, 9 Wash. 530,
533, 38 Pac. 134.
38. Webster Diet, [quoted in State v.
Sayre, 118 Ala. 1, 52, 24 Ko. 89]. See also
Com. V. Homer, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 555, 557,
where it was held that, under a statute pro-
viding that a person who is lawfully impris-
TERM [38 CycJ 185
in the preftiises acquired by the tenant from his landlord by the terms of his lease.^"
Also a limit; a boundary.*" (Term or Terms: For Years, see Landlord and
Tenant, 24 Cyc. 958. Imposition of — On Affirmance of Judgment, see Appeal
AND Error, 3 Cyc. 422; On Allowance of Service of Demurrer After Expiration
of Time, see Pleading, 31 Cyc. 276; On Granting Continuance, see Continuances
IN CrviL Cases, 9 Cyc. 151; Continuances in Criminal Cases, 9 Cyc. 207; On
Granting Leave to Amend Pleading, see Equity, 16 Cyc. 348; Pleading, 31 Cyc.
377 ; On Granting Order of Substitution, see Attorney and Client, 4 Cyc. 955 ;
On Granting or Refusing Change of Venue, see Criminal Law, 12 Cyc. 260;
VENtrs; On Granting or Refusing Injunction, see Injunctions, 22 Cyc. 960; On
Granting or Refusing New Trial, see New Trial, 29 Cyc. 1013; On Granting
Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal, see Appeal and Error, 2 Cyc. 895 ; Review
of Discretion of Lower Court as to, see Appeal and Error, 3 Cyc. 336. Of
Agency of Broker, see Factors and Brokers, 19 Cyc. 192. Of Agreement —
As Question of Fact in Suit to Enforce Mechanic's Lien, see Mechanics' Liens,
27 Cyc. 422; Evidence as to in Suit to Enforce Mechanic's Lien, see Mechanics'
Liens, 27 Cyc. 410. Of Annuity, see Annuities, 2 Cyc. 461. Of Appointment
as Official Newspaper, see Newspapers, 29 Cyc. 700. Of Charter-Party, see
Shipping, 36 Cyc. 56. Of Composition With Creditors, see Bankruptcy, 5 Cyc.
356. Of Contract — As to Services or Materials in Lien Claim or Statement, see
Mechanics' Liens, 27 Cyc. 175; Bill of Particulars as to, see Pleading, 31 Cyc.
574; Certainty to Enforce Specifically, see Specific Performance, 36 Cyc. 587;
Effect of Custom to Explain, see Customs and Usages, 12 Cyc. 1081; Of Sale
of Goods, Construction of, see Sales, 35 Cyc. 110; Statement of in Memorandum
Required by Statute of Frauds, see Frauds, Statute of, 20 Cyc. 258; Variance
Between Allegations and Proof as to, in Suit to Enforce Mechanic's Lien, see
Mechanics' Liens, 27 Cyc. 404; With Municipal Corporation, see Municipal
Corporations, 28 Cyc. 655. Of Copyright, see Copyright, 9 Cyc. 929, 975.
Of Court — In General, see Courts, 11 Cyc. 726; Amendment of Pleading at
Subsequent, see Pleading, 31 Cyc. 407; Application For New Trial at Special or
Trial, see New Trial, 29 Cyc. 922 note 14; Averment as to in Caption of Indict-
oned for certain causes mentioned, who granted as to time; e. g., for life, for years,
breaks prison and escapes, may be punished for a year, a month and the like, as may be
by imprisonment for one year in addition to specified in the lease; but it signifies the
the unexpired portion of the term, the stat- estate also, and interest that passes by the
ute does not include a person who is im- lease." Hurd v. Whitsett, 4 Colo. 77, 84
prisoned for trial, or for want of bail and [citing Bouvier L. Diet.; Burrill L. Diet.;
the like. Taylor Landl. & Ten. § 16; Greenleaf Cruise,
Applied to a number of years the word tit. 8, § 6]. See also Baldwin t\ Thibadeau,
imports a succession of years; an unbroken 17 N. Y. Suppl. 532, 534, 28 Abb. N. Cas. 14;
period of time. Gaillard v. Gaillard, 23 Weander v. Claussen Brewing Assoc, 42
Miss. 152, 153; Lincoln v. Warren, 19 Vt. Wash. 226, 228, 84 Pac. 735, 114 Am. St.
170, 171; Royalton v. Bethel, 10 Vt. 22, 25. Rep. 110 [citing Taylor Landl. & Ten. 16].
"Any term of years" see Eoo p. Seymour, Frequently applied to a lease for a term
14 Pick. (Mass.) 40, 43. of years, because its duration or continu-
" For a term of years " see Com. r. .Evans, ance is bounded, limited, and determined.
16 Pick. (Mass.) 448, 450. Austin v. Huntsville Coal, etc., Co., 72 Mo.
"Term of court" defined see Courts, U 535, 542, 37 Am. Rep. 446 [citing Taylor
Cyc. 720. Landl. & Ten. § 11]; Gay Mfg. Co. ».
'"Term of ofSce" defined see Officees, 29 Hobbs, 128 N. C. 46, 48, 38 S. E. 26, 83
Cyc. 1395. Am. St. Rep. 661; Delaware, etc., R. Co. v.
"Term of the insurance" see Bangs v. Sanderson, 109 Pa. St. 583, 591, 1 Atl. 394,
Skidmore, 21 N. Y. 136, 140; Raegener v. 58 Am. Rep. 743; Delaware, etc., K. Co. v.
Willard, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 41, 45, 60 N. Y. Sanderson, 2 C. PI. (Pa.) 203, 209. See also
Suppl. 478. Sanderson v. Scranton, 105 Pa. St. 469,
"Term-time " see Brown v. Plott, 129 N. C. 472.
272, 273, 40 S. E. 45. 40. Beus v. Shaughnessy, 2 Utah 492, 500.
39. Grizzle v. Pennington, 14 Bush (Ky.) As used in a power of attorney empower-
J15, 116. ing the grantee of the power to grant, bar-
" The word . . . when used in respect to gain and sell land or any part thereof " on
.tenancies has in law a distinct and technical such terms as to him shall seem meet," the
definition, signifying time, duration, and it word empowered the attorney in fact to sell
means not only the' limitation of the estate on reasonable credit. Carson v. Smith, 5 Minn,
186 [38 Cyc] TIJEM
ment, see Indictments and Informations, 22 Cyc. 234; Designation of in Declara-
tion, Complaint, Petition, or Statement, see Pleading, 31 Cyc. 94; Designation
of in Process, see Process, 32 Cyc. 432; District Courts of United States, see
Courts, 11 Cyc. 951; District of Columbia Courts, see Courts, 11 Cyc. 964; Effect
of Demand For Jury at Previous, see Juries, 24 Cyc. 168; For Declaring For-
feiture of Bail, see Bail, 5 Cyc. 128; For Docketing Cause on Appeal, see Appeal
and Error, 2 Cyc. 877 ; For Filing Cases For Appeal, see Appeal and Error, 3
Cyc. 60; For Proceedings to Set Aside or Vacate Award, see Arbitration and
Award, 3 Cyc. 761, 762 ; For Removal of Cause From One State Court to Another,
see Courts, 11 Cyc. 995; For Taking Appeal, see Appeal and Error, 2 Cyc.
797; Criminal Law, 12 Cyc. 825; For Transmission and Filing of Record on
Appeal, see Appeal and Error, 3 Cyc. 117; For Trial in General, see Trial;
For Trial in Criminal Prosecution, see Criminal Law, 12 Cyc. 498; For Trial of
Bastardy Proceedings, see Bastards, 6 Cyc. 665; Motion to Retax Cause After
Close of, see Costs, 11 Cyc. 163; Power of Special Judge After Adjournment of,
see Judges, 23 Cyc. 564 ; Prescribing by Legislature as Encroachment on Judiciary,
see Constitutional Law, 8 Cyc. 823; Term Fees, see Costs, 11 Cyc. Ill; To
Which Return of Process Should Be Made, see Process, 32 Cyc. 432; Validity
of Judgment Rendered After Time For Adjournment of, see Judgments, 23 Cyc.
676. Of Court at Which — Bill of Exceptions Must Be Presented, see Appeal
AND Error, 3 Cyc. 38; Criminal Law, 12 Cyc. 853; Demand For Jury Must Be
Made, see Juries, 24 Cyc. 163; Indictment Must Be Found, see Indictments
AND Informations, 22 Cyc. 196 ; Judgment May Be Amended, Opened, or Vacated,
see Judgments, 23 Cyc. 860, 861, 901, 902 ; Process May Be Amended, see Process
32 Cyc. 536. Of Credit For Goods Sold, see Sales, 35 Cyc. 267. Of Employ-
ment — In General, see Master and Servant, 26 Cyc. 972; Of Minister, see
Religious Societies, 34 Cyc. 1146; Of Seaman, see Seamen, 35 Cyc. 1186; Of
Teacher, see Schools and School-Districts," 35 Cyc. 1079. Of Foreclosure
Sale, see Mortgages, 27 Cyc. 1699. Of Imprisonment — In General, see Crim-
inal Law, 12 Cyc. 967; For Contempt, see Contempt, 9 Cyc. 52; Granting of
Pardon After Service or Expiration of, see Pardons, 29